Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2012, volume 39, pages 683 – 697
doi:10.1068/b38073
Accessibility is gold, mobility is not: a proposal for the t analysis António Ferreira Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018 VZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands and Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, 36–40 University Road, LS2 0JT, Leeds, England; e-mail:
[email protected] Els Beukers, Marco Te Brömmelstroet Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018 VZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; e-mail:
[email protected], M.C.G.teBrommelstroet.uva.nl Received 8 April 2011; in revised form 22 August 2011 Abstract. t analysis (CBA) has become a key instrument for the evaluation of transport planning policies and projects in the Netherlands. Currently, this instrument is also used to evaluate integrated land-use and transport strategies. In Dutch transportts is directly related to a narrow understanding of mobility. In this paper we argue that this understanding introduces an undesirable bias t to society of contemporary transport planning practice is no longer the improvement of mobility, but the improvement of accessibility. Therefore, Dutch CBA should acknowledge this in its calculations and shift from a mobility focus towards an accessibility orientation. We use a hypothetical illustration to show what the added value of an accessibility orientation can be. It facilitates a mindset where new and more sustainable directions for nd. Keywords: tools
t analysis, transport planning, accessibility, mobility, assessment
Changing paradigms in transport planning Cost–benefi t analysis (CBA) is a traditional tool to support decision making and this tool is being widely used in Dutch transport planning (Annema et al, 2006). Transport-planning theory and practice are experiencing meaningful transitions at a worldwide level, con icting with many of the traditional understandings and tools. Central to this study is the transition from transport planning being focused on facilitating mobility to it becoming increasingly centred on the enhancement of accessibility. This aforementioned con ict results in a lack of coherence: the social and practical goals in the transport domain are changing but the technical instruments are still very much based on an obsolete, narrow orientation on what matters for this domain (Handy, 2008). In this paper we map this lack of coherence in the case of Dutch transport planning. The debate has an international reach: highly in uential organisations such as the World Bank also use CBA as the basic tool for ex-ante evaluation of transport projects. The OECD also presents CBA as a central evaluation tool for their decision-making processes (see Pearce et al, 2006). We argue that for CBA, particularly Dutch transportrelated CBA, to ‘make sense’ today, the guidelines of this evaluation tool have to be aligned with what it means to do transport planning now. This requires an understanding of the deep changes that this activity has experienced recently. Indeed, transport planning has evolved from simplistic ‘predict and provide’ approaches focused on mobility improvement (Marvin and Guy, 1999; Owens, 1995) to complex approaches where the focus is on accessibility and
684
A Ferreira, E Beukers, M Te Brömmelstroet
sustainability (Banister, 2008; Bertolini et al, 2005; Hull, 2008). Nowadays transport planning is no longer oriented to facilitate movement from A to B, but is instead concerned with a holistic view of mobility in relation to a wide range of social, cultural, and environmental issues (Bertolini et al, 2008; Cresswell, 2008; Cresswell and Uteng, 2008; Ferreira and Batey, 2010; Meyer and Miller, 2001). This discipline is no longer focused on infrastructures and infrastructural development, but is opening itself to how individuals experience access to activities and places in space and in time (Geurs and van Wee, 2004a; Geurs et al, 2006; Hägerstrand, 1970). Transport planning has also moved beyond searching solutions for congestion problems to acknowledging the relevance of creative planning processes where solving congestion reducing travel times might not, and maybe should not, be central goals anymore (Ferreira and Batey, 2007; Stopher, 2004). Finally, transport planning has stopped being a mere ‘technical–rational’ activity (Schön, 1983). Transport planning—following a general trend in planning—no longer takes place in a relatively simple institutional context where computer models, economic evaluations, and numeric outputs are necessarily central for decision making (Friedmann, 1987). Nowadays, this discipline is highly socially aware and its decisions occur in a complex environment where multiple stakeholders, holding different values and having conflicting goals, interact and make decisions together (Willson, 2001). These transitions set new requirements: transport planning needs not only different types of knowledge (Handy, 2008; Healey, 2007; Te Brömmelstroet and Bertolini, 2011) but also new ways of generating and employing knowledge. The Dutch government recognised these broader concerns and instructed that they be taken into consideration in the assessment of land-use and transport projects (Waterstaat and Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, 2009). The problem is, however, that with the current Dutch CBA guidelines it is difficult to take these concerns into consideration. This is particularly important because in the Netherlands the social impacts of transport projects have been generally overlooked (Geurs et al, 2009). We will argue here that the Dutch CBA guidelines are based upon inappropriate assumptions. The wrong question is assumed at the outset: the question should be formulated in terms of improving accessibility and not in terms of increasing mobility. According to Pope and Grace (2006), this is an important subject: the ‘decision question’ not only guides the assessment process and the extent to which sustainability goals come into the process design, but also deeply influences the development of the final proposal itself. In this paper we address these issues in detail and aim to start a fruitful discussion between transport-planning academics and academics in the field of CBA. Dutch transport-related CBA: an overview of the problem As stated previously, CBA has been established as the legal mandatory instrument for the evaluation of transport-related projects in the Netherlands (Annema et al, 2006; de Jong and Geerlings, 2003; Eijgenraam et al, 2000). For an explanation about why this assessment tool was accepted in the Dutch planning system see de Jong and Geerlings (2003). For a review of transport appraisal methods see Bristow and Nellthorp (2000) and Geurs and van Wee (2004b). Although CBA has several conceptual and methodological limitations richly articulated by Naess (2006), this tool also offers significant advantages for Dutch planning practice: it provides structural, transparent, and traceable policy information to support transport-planning decision making (Annema et al, 2006; de Jong and Geerlings, 2003; Haezendonck, 2007). To guarantee the comparability of alternatives and projects assessed through CBA, specific standardised guidelines were established on how to perform a CBA in Dutch planning, in terms of both content and process (de Jong and Geerlings, 2003; Eijgenraam et al, 2000). A closer look at the Dutch transport-related CBA guidelines shows that the method for calculating benefits and the underlying assumptions about mobility have two negative
Improvement of Dutch transport-related CBA
685
results. These are the overestimation of benefits resulting from new transport infrastructures and a systematic bias favouring mobility-enhancing projects. This happens because Dutch transport-related CBA measures mobility improvements resulting from transport projects as the major benefit of these projects. As we shall see throughout this paper, this is highly misleading and in conflict with the goals of contemporary transport planning. It is similar to assuming that the benefit of running a gold mine is to dig large amounts of land. Obviously, the benefit of running a gold mine is to find gold and not to dig land. Considering the amount of removed land as the success indicator of running a gold mine does not make sense. Actually, the ideal would be if the miners could find the maximum amount of gold through the minimum removal of land. In the same way, we claim that the benefit of transportplanning practice is to provide people with good accessibility levels to the activities and services they need and not to make people travel per se. Ideally, people should not have to travel extensively to have access to what they need. There is more to it: as we shall see, increased mobility frequently represents people experiencing a decrease in their accessibility levels and therefore this simplified view on the benefits of transport-planning practice is deceptive. We see this as a fundamental flaw that needs to be corrected, especially in the light of the abovementioned trends in transport planning in which goals are broadening and sustainability is becoming a central concern. We structure our argument as followings. First, we open the Dutch CBA black-box and describe how the instrument approaches and calculates mobility as a benefit. Then, we modestly attempt to unravel the complex concept of mobility to support our argument that a change in the guidelines is needed. We propose a new indicator that can greatly improve this evaluation instrument and thus the design and development of transport-planning processes, as well as their outcomes—this indicator is accessibility. A short hypothetical illustration showing how the current CBA guidelines favour mobility-enhancing projects is presented and used to clarify why these guidelines narrow transport planning’s strategic reach. We conclude the paper by arguing that, considering the previous discussion about mobility, another approach should be adopted in Dutch CBA to measure the societal benefits of transport-related investments. This approach would focus on accessibility instead of mobility indicators. Opening the Dutch CBA black-box In its present form Dutch CBA measures time savings as the major (monetary) benefit resulting from transport projects, assuming that the purpose of these projects is to reduce time spent on travelling. An ongoing question related to this is whether average travel time can be reduced or whether travel time is a societal constant (Golob et al, 1981; Schafer and Victor, 1997; Szalai, 1972). This is an important question because, if total travel times are constant, projects that reduce travel time will in the long run induce an increase in total transport volumes (van Wee et al, 2006) and not a sustained reduction in travelling time. Some argue that average travel time is variable (eg, Levinson and Wu, 2005), while others claim that average travel time might actually be increasing (eg, van Wee et al, 2006). Finally, some argue that the assumption that total travel time is a constant is a misinterpretation caused by a lack of empirical data on slow travel modes such as walking and cycling. These two modes arguably account for most of the variation in travel times (Metz, 2004). Following the reasoning which assumes that travel time is either constant, or is increasing—note that the latter seems to be the case in the Netherlands (van Wee et al, 2006)—implies that in the short term some time will be saved as a result of improved transport networks, but in the long term a large amount of time will be spent on new and longer trips facilitated by the improved travelling conditions. In relation to reduced travel time, a central aspect to consider here is the problem posed by ‘induced traffic’ (Coombe, 1996; Goodwin, 1996; Hills, 1996; Mackie, 1996). This
686
A Ferreira, E Beukers, M Te Brömmelstroet
corresponds to the total amount of new trips that come into being because improved transport networks make travelling less costly. In order to understand induced traffic mathematically, consider equation (1). GTC = C + aT + bO .
(1)
Generalised transport costs
In this simplified equation GTC stands for the generalised transport cost that people experience when they consider making a certain trip, C for the direct monetary costs resulting from travelling, T for time spent on travelling, O for other aspects that might be relevant to the travellers’ decision (normally related to comfort, safety, and convenience), and a and b are coefficients that convert the previous variables into monetary value. GTC equations are typically linear and they are indeed assumed as such in the Dutch CBA guidelines (as displayed in figure 1). For further information on GTC equations and their uses see, for example, Ortúzar and Willumsen (2002). Following equation (1), when transport-related projects are completed the result tends to be faster, more comfortable, and safer trips. This means that the GTC for making the trip decreases. Then more people judge the cost of travelling as acceptable and they start travelling. This is the induced travel demand caused by infrastructural improvements as discussed by Metz (2004). The relationship between induced demand and GTC as understood in Dutch CBA is displayed in figure 1.
GTC(before)
GTC(after)
(before)
(after)
Number of users
Figure 1. Cost acceptability curve for a general transport-improvement project.
We can assume that there was an initial GTC for a specific trip, this is GTC(before). This was applicable before a certain improvement was made in the infrastructure. GTC(before) corresponds to a relatively small number of users, those who are willing to accept the relatively high transport cost. After an improvement is made, for instance through improving the capacity of existing links, the GTC for this trip decreases—it becomes GTC(after). Then, as a result, the number of users increases. In a Dutch CBA, the overall benefits of this improvement for the users that travelled both before and after the improvement are given by the size of the shaded area A in figure 2(a). This area corresponds to the decrease of GTC multiplied by the number of travellers who are benefiting from this decrease. In our view, it is acceptable to consider this number as a benefit resulting from the improvement. These people, who had to travel both before and after the improvement, can now do so faster, safer, and more comfortably. However, in a Dutch CBA, the counting of the benefits for a situation like this does not stop here. In figure 2(b) we display the benefits experienced by the new travellers who, because the GTC has been reduced, are now willing to start travelling. According to the CBA guidelines, this is given
Generalised transport costs
Improvement of Dutch transport-related CBA
(a)
687
A B
Number of users
(b)
Number of users
Figure 2: Mobility benefits measured by Dutch CBA. (a) benefits for users travelling before and after improvement; (b) benefits for new travellers.
by the size of the shaded area B in figure 2(b). This is generally called the rule-of-half benefit measure (Geurs et al, 2010a; Mackie, 1996).(1) This raises fundamental questions. Why are time savings for travellers that used the system before summed with the time spent by those who experience induced travelling? And, more importantly, why are both considered to be benefits? The main assumption here is that individuals have a maximum willingness to pay which is supposed to express the utility people obtain from travelling. In an attempt to provide a simple example on how mobility is considered in the CBA, an expert with a background in economics compared mobility with apples. People need both apples and mobility, he said, and when the prices drop, people consume more mobility and more apples. His example represents the concept of utility in economic theory. For apples, this reasoning seems constructive: decreasing the production price leads to a lower retail price and consequently to more consumption of apples. Now, more people are able to satisfy their need for apples and have a more balanced diet. This represents a benefit. In the changing context of transport planning where sustainability is a central issue, however, this comparison between apples and mobility is not constructive. In this context, more mobility represents less sustainability. To understand this issue further, first we have to find answers to the following questions. What is mobility? Is mobility a good thing? Is it bad? What kind of effects does it have in terms of direct, indirect, and even philosophical respects? We set out to provide answers to these questions in the next section. What is mobility? In academic debates mobility is often presented as a multifaceted phenomenon and this is the reason why it can be defined in quite a few ways ranging from very broad to very narrow definitions. According to Larsen et al (2006), mobility is comprehended as (1) the physical movement of people, (2) the physical movement of objects, (3) imaginative travel elsewhere through images and memories seen on texts, TV, computer screens, and film; (4) virtual travel on the Internet, and finally (5) communicative travel through person-to-person messages (eg, letters and postcards). In transport-related CBA, the definition of mobility is narrowed down to the first two concepts: physical movement of people and physical movement of objects. In this paper the argument is centred on the alleged benefits of the physical movement of people. However, this definition lacks a description about the purpose of mobility. This is necessary if our aim is to discuss critically whether travel mobility should be seen as a benefit. For this, the concept of accessibility needs to be introduced. Accessibility can also be defined in many (1) Note
that CBA takes travel costs into account as well as, for example, the cost of CO2 emissions or noise production. However, in this paper we do not examine how these costs are considered in transport-related CBA. Here we focus on how the benefits are being assessed.
688
A Ferreira, E Beukers, M Te Brömmelstroet
ways—critically discussed in Ferreira and Batey (2007). What is important at this stage is to establish a relationship between accessibility and mobility. As articulated by Bertolini and le Clercq (2003), people and companies essentially want to participate in activities (ie, working, shopping, recreation). Since these activities are located in spatially disjointed places, people use mobility to link these activities together. This implies that mobility is, to a large extent, what people use when they aim to have accessibility to something, someone, or some place. In other words, mobility is a means (or a derived activity), while access is the essential goal. We should also acknowledge that people sometimes travel for the sake of travelling (Mokhtarian and Salomon, 2001; Mokhtarian et al, 2001). Therefore, if the quality of the transport systems increases, it is likely that people will travel more often for the sake of enjoyment and that these trips will be longer. The above reasoning culminates in our definition of mobility as it should be used in CBA. Mobility is physical movement undertaken either to have access to people, places, and events and/or to provide enjoyment for the traveller resulting from the experience of physical movement in itself. This definition allows us to move to the next point, which is whether mobility is desirable. Is mobility good? Considering direct effects The debate of whether mobility is intrinsically advantageous is very complex and has many ramifications. Here we are not aiming to explore all these ramifications, but just to show the complexity of the debate. As Bertolini and le Clercq (2003) articulate, mobility is always about finding a balance between its advantages and its drawbacks. Mobility is what grants us access to spatially disjointed activities which—exactly because of the ubiquity of mobility and its infrastructures—are very common nowadays. Actually, car-based land-use development has led to the sprawling of activities to become the general rule in many places (see the next section). So, mobility is, in this respect, vital for the economic and social functioning of our cities and regions. However, mobility has serious environmental, social, and financial costs. Among the environmental costs we can address CO2 emissions, depletion of natural resources, and excessive energy use. Road accidents, aeroplane crashes, the resulting causalities, stress caused by congestion or public transport delays, and difficult travelling conditions are some of the social costs of mobility. The financial costs can be divided in two groups; first those supported by the public sector, for example, costs related to infrastructural development and maintenance. Second, we also have private costs, namely buying and maintaining a car or purchasing bus and subway tickets. Despite the intensifying efforts to improve the sustainability of mobility there is still a long way to go (Banister, 2008). Although the benefits of mobility are large, increasing mobility still means decreasing social, environmental, and financial sustainability. The benefits are intrinsically attached to the costs. This should not be forgotten, especially because instruments for the assessment of transport-related projects such as CBA balance benefits against costs. Is mobility good? Considering indirect effects It is important to reflect critically on whether or not it was mobility that caused so many activities and people to become spatially disjointed in the first place. An affirmative answer is common wisdom among urban and transport planners. These professionals now consider the interaction between land use and transport as a central concept in the understanding of how regions and cities work (Wegener and Fürst, 1999). This makes it even more questionable to use improved mobility as a benefit because improving mobility means
Improvement of Dutch transport-related CBA
689
inducing activities and people to become even more spatially disjointed. This will then induce more mobility and more dependency on mobility. A widely used transport model in the Netherlands, the LMS (Landelijk Model System), contains basic assumptions about changes in the trip destinations of travellers. These basic assumptions are supposed to express changes in the location of companies. Note, however, that this model cannot be considered to be a fully integrated land-use and transport model as most land-use characteristics are considered to be fixed [for a general analysis of the model see de Jong et al (2008); RAND-Europe, 2002]. Since this model provides the main input for CBA, using just basic assumptions seriously limits the view about the future effects of transport-related projects. Improved mobility has many implications other than just changes in the location of companies [for a theoretical perspective on this topic, see Janelle (1969)]. It also changes land-use developments, which then change, yet again, the mobility demand in the long term. This self-reinforcing feedback loop between mobility and land use has actually been common knowledge in transport planning since the middle of the 20th century (Hansen, 1959). Conventional approaches (such as used by the Dutch LMS model) fail to take this feedback loop into consideration, as explained by Geurs et al (2010a). Mobility also changes the jobs–housing balance which influences economic development in general, and the equity between different social groups in particular (Cervero, 1989; 1996; Cervero and Duncan, 2006; Giuliano, 1991; Giuliano and Small, 1993; Levine, 1998; Levinson and Kumar, 1994; Peng, 1997). These are just a selection of the most relevant indirect effects of mobility from an ongoing list. The rule of half measure does not capture all this, because it assumes land use is fixed (Geurst, 2010). Is mobility good? Philosophical considerations It is important to understand the meanings of mobility in our lives and ways of thinking: researchers have suggested that they are surprisingly pervasive (Berger and Luckmann, 1985; McLuhan, 1964). It is also important to be somewhat cautious of policies and approaches that continue increasing mobility before a deeper understanding about these meanings is achieved. Mobility is actually associated with debates of a quite philosophical nature. These debates alert us to (1) the negative social meanings of being mobile; (2) the problematic ideological consequences of transport projects; and (3) the relationships between mobility, conspicuous consumerism, and a morality based on self-gratification (Baudrillard, 1998; Featherstone, 1982, 2004; Ferreira and Batey, 2010; Wittel, 2001). Indeed, the ways of life facilitated by intense mobility patterns are considered by many to be very unsustainable and, sometimes, even unethical. It was argued that constant and easy movement can make individuals become less concerned about the consequences of their actions among the people and places they leave behind (Bauman, 1995, 2005, 2007). Due to excessive mobility, deep and meaningful interpersonal connections can become difficult to develop. Individuals can find themselves faced with the impossibility of developing loyalties to other people and institutions while being forced to be flexible and mobile (Sennett, 1998). From being a benefit, mobility can very easily become a problem. The intrinsic merit of mobility is therefore very difficult to judge. Before assuming that improvement in mobility is a benefit to society and before adopting it in instruments such as CBA, a consensus needs to be reached. The following question is at the core of the debate: is mobility a benefit which also has negative impacts or is mobility a cost? A consensus on how to answer this question does not exist. This is a debate with large philosophical implications that transcend the ambitions of ideas presented in this paper. We just want to show that there are serious ongoing discussions about mobility and its intrinsic merit. Thus, it is better in evaluation tools such as CBA not to consider that more mobility is a benefit in itself. However, we must agree that providing people with good accessibility levels to other people and to the basic services they need is a
690
A Ferreira, E Beukers, M Te Brömmelstroet
democratic right. Whether this should be provided by transport infrastructures that facilitate mobility or by other means (eg, proximity-based land-use development) is a reason for intense academic scrutiny (Breheny, 1992; Burton, 2000; Dijst, 1999; Giuliano and Small, 1993; Hamilton, 1982, 1989; Jenks et al, 2002; Kawabata and Shen, 2006; Levinson and Wu, 2005; Levinson and Kanchi, 2002; Neuman, 2005; Ory et al, 2004; Peng, 1997; Redmond and Mokhtarian, 2001; Rouwendal and Nijkamp, 2004; Sato, 2004; Schwanen et al, 2004; Thomas and Cousins, 2002; Williams et al, 2002). As Banister (1999) proposed we could, and arguably should, plan more to travel less. From mobility to accessibility in the CBA guidelines The previous discussion shows that the assumption that mobility is intrinsically positive and desirable is, at best, open to discussion. The precautionary principle recommends that we should not accept unconditionally that mobility is a benefit because there are doubts about its intrinsic merit. Indeed, our core claim is to consider mobility as a cost, that is, a negative thing, and at least be careful in adding together different mobility effects. The problem with Dutch CBA is that a proper distinction between travelling and actually having access to something is not sufficiently explicit because of the rule of half measure (with fixed land use as a key underlying assumption). This is a central problem, or maybe the central problem. Improved mobility does not necessarily mean improved accessibility, it can actually mean the opposite (Bertolini and le Clercq, 2003; Ferreira and Batey, 2007). As a result, this way of measuring the benefits of transport investment is excessively imprecise, not to say wrong. In the long run, the improvement of transport networks can lead to the establishment of the same (or even worse) levels of congestion than before the improvements but experienced by a larger number of people (Stopher, 2004). This might correspond to a general decrease of accessibility associated with a general increase in mobility. It also tends to correspond to a decrease in sustainability. We should be more critical about this because, as previously shown, the benefits of mobility are probably being exaggerated because of the assumptions used to measure them. We are, then, accepting environmental impacts and financial burdens in order to enjoy something that might not be a genuine benefit or that might have much smaller benefits than those determined by CBA. A move from a focus on mobility to a focus on accessibility has actually been advocated by some transport-planning academics (Bertolini and le Clercq, 2003; Bertolini et al, 2005; Ferreira and Batey, 2007; Geurs et al, 2010a; Handy, 2002). We, like some Dutch scholars (Geurs et al, 2010b; van Wee, 2010), are inviting CBA experts to make the same move. This will not only improve the quality of transport-related CBA, but also broaden the horizons of strategy-making and decision-making processes. The following imaginary example will elaborate further on this. Classic CBA in an imaginary region We have argued that there is a bias in the CBA guidelines that favours the implementation of mobility-enhancing projects. This happens because mobility in itself is considered as a major benefit and as a proxy variable for accessibility. We claim that this is a problem and use an example to clarify our point. We assume a region that is considering improving the accessibility of people to amenities, based on the idea that this would improve social equity and the average standard of quality of life in the region. Centre A provides a number of fundamental primary amenities that centres B and C are lacking (eg, a hospital). As shown in figure 3, centres B and C are peripheral and separated by a river. However they both have a good provision of secondary amenities (eg, grocery stores) that profit from their own catchment areas. In order to achieve higher levels of accessibility to amenities, the region is considering increasing its interconnectivity. To achieve
Improvement of Dutch transport-related CBA
691
Figure 3. Two alternative road projects to connect centres A to B and B to C. Alternative I requires improving an existing road; alternative II requires building a new bridge.
this, two alternative road projects are under consideration. One of the alternatives considered is to improve the existing congested road between centres A and B. This is alternative I. Alternative II consists of building a new link to connect centres B and C. This alternative is being considered because currently people who want to travel from B to C need to take the road between A and B, which is congested. As a result, building a link between B and C will not only lead to less congestion but also to shorter trips for those travelling from B to C. For the sake of argument, we assume here that the costs of both alternatives are similar. If we carry out a classic Dutch CBA on alternatives I and II, this will show that both alternatives will lead to a reduction in travel time for existing travellers between the different centres because both improve road capacity. As a result, both alternatives will (1) reduce travel times and, therefore, (2) also induce more people to travel between the centres. According to the logic of the Dutch CBA evaluation, the first conclusion is that both alternatives are beneficial because they increase mobility. The subsequent question is then to decide which one has the greater benefits, that is, which one increases mobility the most. As shown in figure 4, alternative I will improve the travel times of those travelling along the road between centres A and B because it will reduce congestion. This will also induce extra travelling. Alternative II (building a new bridge) corresponds to sharply decreasing the distance between centres B and C bringing them into each other’s catchment area. This means that this alternative will result in a drastic reduction of GTC between centres B and C. This will lead to both a very high reduction in travel time and a sharp increase in the number of induced travellers between these centres. It is also expected to improve the travelling conditions of the road between centres A and B because those travelling between centres B and C no longer have to use that road. After balancing benefits and costs, the alternative that performs better will be chosen after comparison with ‘alternative zero’: a do-minimum baseline. This ‘alternative zero’ can be accepting that people living in centre B just have to deal with the fact that their accessibility to the fundamental amenities in centre A will remain poor. On the basis of the CBA logic, the alternative with the greater benefits when compared against the zero alternative will have the better chance of receiving national funding and of being implemented (remember that costs are being considered equal). The drawback to choosing alternative II is that it is probable that many secondary amenities, currently located in both centres B and C, will cluster in B, which is the larger. Clustering of activities facilitated by businesses profiting from economies of scale is a well-known result of improved transport links between urban centres (Janelle, 1969). If the decision were to be to improve the connectivity between centres B and A (alternative I) this process would also
692
1. Improving road, less congestion, slight decrease in travel time
A Ferreira, E Beukers, M Te Brömmelstroet
3. Due to catchment with C, secondary amenities use economy of scale to group in B
2. More people in B able to reach primary amenities and jobs in A
1. New bridge
3. More of B in catchment, economies-ofscale amenities move to A
(a)
2. Region balanced since C more central
4. C stays peripheral, secondary amenities stay
4. Inhabitants of C have to travel more
(b)
Figure 4. The transport and land-use effects of the two alternatives. (a) alternative I: improving an existing road; (b) alternative II: building a new bridge.
occur: activities would cluster even more in A. People living in a small centre that becomes connected to a larger centre normally end up having to travel to the larger centre to have access to what they used to have in their own area. Detailed explanations of this process can be found in the academic literature (eg, Ferreira and Batey, 2007; Janelle, 1968; 1969). If we define accessibility as the number and diversity of primary and secondary amenities that can be reached within an acceptable GTC, in the long run the implementation of either of these two alternatives is likely to mean people experiencing either a decrease or the maintenance of their initial accessibility levels associated with a substantial increase in their travelling. Indeed, ‘proximity-maintained accessibility’ would be replaced by ‘transport-maintained accessibility’ (Ferreira and Batey, 2007) which, in this case and in practical terms, means higher car dependency as we are addressing here the construction of new or better roads. It is now common wisdom that, in the long run, car dependency is associated with congestion and reduced accessibility levels. In Dutch CBA, paradoxically, this potential reduction in accessibility is counted as a benefit because it means more (car-based) mobility. A new perspective: the added value of accessibility However, if we consider accessibility as the relevant benefit and we avoid the pitfall of equating mobility to it, what results should we expect? First, we have to decide about accessibility to what and by whom. We can assume that the aim is to improve the access of the largest number of people to fundamental primary and secondary amenities (such as healthcare, schools, food stores). We should therefore decide what kind of alternatives should be taken into consideration in order to achieve this aim. If we consider again our imaginary example we can see that both alternatives now seem relatively poor. Adopting accessibility as the relevant indicator (instead of mobility) makes alternatives that are not focused on transportation infrastructures more likely to be discussed and adopted. Indeed, accessibility can be improved by providing more and faster mobility, but also by improving the proximity between supply and demand (Handy, 2002). The latter can be done by creating a better supply of basic amenities in close proximity to people. Among these amenities we can address health care or certain types of jobs in both centre B and centre C. This is likely to improve the well-being of people living in all three centres while at the same time reducing road congestion. This double goal is achievable because
Improvement of Dutch transport-related CBA
693
fewer people will have to travel away from their own centres when trying to access the amenities they need. These strategies can also have a high potential (Banister, 1999) and they can lead us away from the drawbacks of increased mobility. However, if the indicator adopted is mobility, alternatives of this type will perform very poorly in a CBA because they reduce mobility! As argued by Ferreira and Batey (2007, page 448), the greatest benefit of thinking in terms of accessibility (and not in terms of mobility) is that this invites decision makers to “think in an interdisciplinary and multifaceted way and that is fundamental for the creative production: it broadens the perspectives and ‘raises the level of the game’ (McPhee, 1969) in the problem-finding stage”. In summary, we claim that considering accessibility as the key indicator will improve not only the quality of the solutions but also, most importantly, the quality of the goals likely to be adopted by the decision makers. Conclusion The way that induced demand is counted as a benefit in CBA seems to us uninformed or even totally wrong. Research analysing how induced travel demand should be counted in CBA is clearly a pressing enterprise. In the meantime, decision makers should be critical of the way that CBA performs the counting of benefits related to transport-planning decision-making processes. Dutch transport-related CBA guidelines are supportive of increasing mobility and building roads as if this is still the goal of transport planning. Instead of measuring mobility in assessing the benefits of transport investments, we propose that it is accessibility that should be measured as a benefit. This is particularly relevant because improved mobility can actually mean reduced accessibility. However, the way to integrate accessibility in CBA should be analysed carefully. Discussions about how we can define accessibility in a standardised way are profoundly needed because the task is not easy (Geurs and van Wee, 2004a). It might result in a multidimensional calculation of accessibility, for instance the accessibility to certain jobs, consumers, and/or fundamental amenities. In particular, the work of Halden (2003; Halden et al, 2000) which focuses on what kind of accessibility matters and that of Geurs et al (2010a) on logsum measures of accessibility, Geurs et al (2006) on `location-based’ and `utility-based’ accessibility approaches, and Geurs and van Eck (2003) on activity-based measures can all inspire such a political and academic debate. We claim that this will provide not only a better assessment of the real benefits resulting from transport-planning practice, but also provide opportunities for new, more creative, and sustainable alternatives to be discussed in decision-making processes. We should be aware in these discussions that we must keep our checks and balances right. Therefore, we should also consider the negative impacts of improved accessibility. This is a relevant line of research. For example, one can think about the loss of economies of scale. A debate on how to conceptualise accessibility in CBA and how to assess its impacts is necessary. Our main purpose here is to stress the urgency of this debate. The financial situation of the economy is not the best and the global environment is experiencing serious strain. Consequently, it is very important that future projects are assessed using very good tools. A final note: we are aware of the limited effect of accessibility on the overall benefits of transport projects (Geurst, 2010). However, our argument here is not that the inclusion of these benefits will cause more road projects to score positively in CBA. This is actually a common wish among some planning practitioners who are still not particularly concerned with sustainability. However, in a state of affairs in which concerns related to environmental and financial sustainability are becoming increasingly more central, the need for the construction of further infrastructures needs to be assessed carefully. We have argued that focusing on accessibility opens up new ways of thinking. These new ways can transcend the logic of building more roads and open up fresh possibilities that are more creative and sustainable.
694
A Ferreira, E Beukers, M Te Brömmelstroet
This way of thinking is already emerging among planning theorists and practitioners, but is being hampered by the Dutch CBA guidelines. CBA largely defines what types of plans and projects are funded and implemented in the Netherlands, so its guidelines need to be improved. If this change takes place in the Netherlands, other countries and international organisations might also be willing to change their guidelines. We believe that the benefits of a global change towards an accessibility orientation, instead of a mobility focus, can potentially mean a quantum leap towards social, economic, and environmental sustainability. References Annema J A, Koopmans C, van Wee G P, 2006, “Evaluating transport infrastructure investments: the Dutch experience with a standardized approach” Transport Reviews 27 125–150 Banister D, 1999, “Planning more to travel less: land use and transport” Town Planning Review 70 313–338 Banister D, 2008, “The sustainable mobility paradigm” Transport Policy 15 73–80 Baudrillard J, 1998 The Consumer Society (Sage, London) Bauman Z, 1995 Postmodern Ethics (Blackwell, Oxford) Bauman Z, 2005 Work, Consumerism and the New Poor (Open University Press, Maidenhead, Berks) Bauman Z, 2007 Liquid Life (Polity Press, Cambridge) Berger P L, Luckmann T, 1985 The Social Construction of Reality (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middx) Bertolini L, le Clercq F, 2003, “Urban development without more mobility by car? Lessons from Amsterdam, a multimodal urban region” Environment and Planning A 35 575–589 Bertolini L, le Clercq F, Kapoen L, 2005, “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 12 207–220 Bertolini L, le Clercq F, Straatemeier T, 2008, “Urban transportation planning in transition” Transport Policy 15 69–72 Breheny M J, 1992, “The contradictions of the compact city: a review”, in Sustainable Development and Urban Form Ed. M J Breheny (Pion, London) pp 139–159 Bristow A L, Nellthorp J, 2000, “Transport project appraisal in the European Union” Transport Policy 7 51–60 Burton E, 2000, “The compact city: just or just compact? A preliminary analysis” Urban Studies 37 1969–2001 Cervero R, 1989, “The jobs–housing balance and regional mobility” Journal of the American Planning Association 55 136–150 Cervero R, 1996, “Jobs–housing balance revisited: trends and impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area” Journal of the American Planning Association 62 492–511 Cervero R, Duncan M, 2006, “Which reduces vehicle travel more: jobs–housing balance or retail– housing mixing?” Journal of the American Planning Association 72 475–490 Coombe D, 1996, “Induced traffic: what do transportation models tell us?” Transportation 23 83–101 Cresswell T, 2008, “Understanding mobility holistically: the case of Hurricane Katrina”, in The Ethics of Mobilities: Rethinking Place, Exclusion, Freedom and Environment Eds S Bergmann, T Sager (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 129–140 Cresswell T, Uteng T P, 2008, “Gendered mobilities: towards an holistic understanding”, in Gendered Mobilities Eds T P Uteng, T Cresswell (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 1–12 de Jong G, Tuinenga J, Kouwenhoven M, 2008, “Prognoses van het Landelijk Model Systeem: Komen Ze Uit?”, in Colloquium Vervoersplanologisch Speurwerk, Santpoort, http://www.cvs-congres.nl/cvspdFdocs/cvs08_62.pdf
de Jong M, Geerlings H, 2003, “Exposing weaknesses in interactive planning: the remarkable return of comprehensive policy analysis in The Netherlands” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 21 281–291 Dijst M, 1999, “Action space as planning concept in spatial planning” Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 14 163–182
Improvement of Dutch transport-related CBA
695
Eijgenraam C J J, Koopmans C C, Tang P J G, Verster A C P, 2000 Deel I Hoofdrapport. Evaluatie van Grote Infrastructuurprojecten. Leidraad voor Kosten-baten Analyse. Onderzoeksprogramma Economische Effecten Infrastructuur Centraal Planbureau en Nederlands Economisch Instituut, The Hague Featherstone M, 1982, “The body in consumer culture” Theory, Culture and Society 1 18–33 Featherstone M, 2004, “Consumer culture” International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences 2662–2669 Ferreira A, Batey P, 2007, “Re-thinking accessibility planning: a multi-layer conceptual framework and its policy implications” Town Planning Review 78 429–458 Ferreira A, Batey P, 2010, “University towns and the multi-layer transport model: excavating the connections between academic ethos and transport problems” Planning Theory and Practice 11 573–592 Friedmann J, 1987 Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) Geurs K, van Eck J, 2003, “Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use scenarios: the implications of job competition, land-use, and infrastructure developments for the Netherlands” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30 69–87 Geurs K, van Wee G P, 2004a, “Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions” Journal of Transport Geography 12 127–140 Geurs K, van Wee G P, 2004b, “Land-use/transport interaction models as tools for sustainability impact assessment of transport investments: review and research perspectives” The European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 4 333–355 Geurs K, van Wee G P, Rietveld P, 2006, “Accessibility appraisal of integrated land-use—transport strategies: methodology and case study for the Netherlands Randstad Area” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 33 639–660 Geurs K, Boon W, van Wee G P, 2009, “Social impacts of transport: literature review and the state of the practice of transport appraisal in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom” Transport Reviews 29 69–90 Geurs K, Zondag B, Jong G d, Bok M d, 2010a, “Accessibility appraisal of land-use/transport policy strategies: more than just adding up travel-time savings” Transportation Research Part D 15 382–393 Geurs K T, Zondag B, Bok M d, 2010b, “De Bereikbaarheidswinst van Verstedelijkingsbeleid” Rooilijn 43 254–259 Geurst K, 2010, “Measuring accessibility of infrastructure projects”, in NARSC Conference (Denver), http://www.narsc.org Giuliano G, 1991, “Is jobs–housing balance a transportation issue?” Transportation Research Record number 1305, 305–312 Giuliano G, Small K A, 1993, “Is the journey to work explained by urban structure?” Urban Studies 30 1485–1501 Golob T, Beckmann M, Zahavi Y, 1981, “A utility-theory travel demand model incorporating travel budgets” Transportation Research Part B 15B 375–389 Goodwin P, 1996, “Empirical evidence on induced traffic: a review and synthesis” Transportation 23 35–54 Haezendonck E, 2007 Transport Project Evaluation: Extending the Social Cost–Benefit Approach (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) Hägerstrand T, 1970, “What about people in regional science?” Regional Science Association Papers 24 6–21 Halden D, 2003, “Accessibility analysis: concepts and their application to transport policy, programme and project evaluation”, in Transport Projects, Programmes and Policies: Evaluation Needs and Capabilities Eds A Pearman, P Mackie, J Nellthorp (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 227–242 Halden D, McGuigan D, Nisbet A, 2000 Accessibility Review of Measuring Techniques and their Application (Scottish Executive, Edinburgh) Hamilton B W, 1982, “Wasteful commuting” Journal of Political Economy 90 1035–1053
696
A Ferreira, E Beukers, M Te Brömmelstroet
Hamilton B W, 1989, “Wasteful commuting again” Journal of Political Economy 97 1497–1504 Handy S, 2002 Accessibility- versus Mobility-enhancing Strategies for Addressing Automobile Dependence in the US US Department of Environmental Science and Policy, prepared for the European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Davis, CA Handy S, 2008, “Regional transportation planning in the US: an examination of changes in technical aspects of the planning process in response to changing goals” Transport Policy 15 113–126 Hansen W G, 1959, “How accessibility shapes land use” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 25 73–76 Healey P, 2007 Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for Our Times (Routledge, London) Hills P, 1996, “What is induced traffic?” Transportation 23 5–16 Hull A, 2008, “Policy integration: what will it take to achieve more sustainable transport solutions in cities?” Transport Policy 15 94–103 Janelle D G, 1968, “Central place development in a time–space framework” The Professional Geographer 20 5–10 Janelle D G, 1969, “Spatial reorganization: a model and concept” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 59 348–364 Jenks M, Burton E, Williams K, 2002 The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? (Spon, Oxford) Kawabata M, Shen Q, 2006, “Job accessibility as an indicator of auto-oriented urban structure: a comparison of Boston and Los Angeles with Tokyo” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 33 115–130 Larsen J, Urry J, Axhausen K, 2006 Mobilities, Networks, Geographies (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) Levine J, 1998, “Rethinking accessibility and jobs–housing balance” Journal of the American Planning Association 64 133–149 Levinson D, Kanchi S, 2002, “Road capacity and the allocation of time” Journal of Transportation and Statistics 5 25–46 Levinson D, Wu Y, 2005, “The rational locator reexamined: are travel times still stable?” Transportation 32 187–202 Levinson D, Kumar A, 1994, “The rational locator: why travel times have remained stable” Journal of the American Planning Association 60 319–332 Mackie P, 1996, “Induced traffic and economic appraisal” Transportation 23 103–119 McLuhan M, 1964 Understanding the Media: The Extensions of Man (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) McPhee J, 1969 Levels of the Game (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York) Marvin S, Guy S, 1999, “Towards a new logic of transport planning?” Town Planning Review 70 139–158 Metz D, 2004, “Travel time—variable or constant?” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 38 333–344 Meyer M, Miller E, 2001 Urban Transportation Planning 2nd edition (McGraw-Hill, New York) Mokhtarian P L, Salomon I, 2001, “How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 35 695–719 Mokhtarian P L, Salomon I, Redmond L S, 2001, “Understanding the demand for travel: it’s not purely ‘derived’ ” Innovation 14 355–380 Naess P, 2006, “Cost–benefit analyses of transportation investments: neither critical nor realistic” Journal of Critical Realism 5 32–60 Neuman M, 2005, “The compact city fallacy” Journal of Planning Education and Research 25 11–26 Ortúzar J D, Willumsen L G, 2002 Modelling Transport 3rd edition (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex) Ory D T, Mokhtarian P L, Redmond L S, Salomon I, Collantes G, Choo S, 2004, “When is commuting desirable to the individual?” Growth and Change 35 334–359 Owens S, 1995, “From ‘predict and provide’ to ‘predict and prevent’?: pricing and planning in transport policy” Transport Policy 2 43–49 Pearce D, Atkinson G, Mourato S, 2006 Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments (OECD, Paris) Peng Z-R, 1997, “The jobs–housing balance and urban commuting” Urban Studies 34 1215–1235
Improvement of Dutch transport-related CBA
697
Pope J, Grace W, 2006, “Sustainability assessment in context: issues of process, policy and governance” Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 8 373–398 RAND-Europe, 2002 Backcasting met het LMS Versie 7, Eindrapport, Rapport voor AVV (RANDEurope, Leiden) Redmond L S, Mokhtarian P L, 2001, “The positive utility of the commute: modeling ideal commute time and relative desired commute amount” Transportation 28 179–205 Rouwendal J, Nijkamp P, 2004, “Living in two worlds: a review of home-to-work decisions” Growth and Change 35 287–303 Sato Y, 2004, “City structure, search, and workers’ job acceptance behavior” Journal of Urban Economics 55 350–370 Schafer A, Victor D, 1997, “The past and future of global mobility” Scientific American 227 36–39 Schön D, 1983 The Reflective Practitioner (Basic Books, New York) Schwanen T, Dijst M, Dieleman F M, 2004, “Policies for urban form and their impact on travel: The Netherlands experience” Urban Studies 41 579–603 Sennett R, 1998 The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism (W W Norton, London) Stopher P R, 2004, “Reducing road congestion: a reality check” Transport Policy 11 117–131 Szalai A E, 1972 The Use of Time: Daily Activities of Urban and Suburban Populations in Twelve Countries (Mouton, The Hague) Te Brömmelstroet M, Bertolini L, 2011, “The role of transport related models in urban planning practice” Transport Reviews 31 139–143 Thomas L, Cousins W, 2002, “The compact city: a successful, desirable and achievable urban form?”, in The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? Eds M Jenks, E Burton, K Williams (Spon, Oxford) pp 53–65 van Wee G P, 2010, “Ruimtelijke inrichting en transport: goed voor milieu, of voor bereikbaarheid?” Tijdschrift voor Vervoerswetenschap 4 140–143 van Wee G P, Rietveld P, Meurs H, 2006, “Is average daily travel time expenditure constant? In search of explanations for an increase in average travel time” Journal of Transport Geography 14 109–122 Waterstaat and Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, 2009 Spelregels van het Meerjarenprogramma Infrastructuur, Ruimte en Transport Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, Den Haag Wegener M, Fürst F, 1999 Land-Use Transport Interaction: State of the Art http://www.thepep.org/ClearingHouse/docfiles/land%20use%20transport%20interactions.pdf
Williams K, Burton E, Jenks M, 2002, “Achieving the compact city through intensification: an acceptable option?”, in The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? Eds K Williams, E Burton, M Jenks (Spon , Oxford) pp 83–96 Willson R, 2001, “Assessing communicative rationality as a transportation planning paradigm” Transportation 28 1–31 Wittel A, 2001, “Toward a network sociality” Theory, Culture and Society 18 51–76
© 2012 Pion and its Licensors
