What do you think?
Rate this book
From Mobility to Accessibility: Transforming Urban Transportation and Land-Use Planning
In From Mobility to Accessibility , an expert team of researchers flips the tables on the standard models for evaluating regional transportation performance. Jonathan Levine, Joe Grengs, and Louis A. Merlin argue for an "accessibility shift" whereby transportation planning, and the transportation dimensions of land-use planning, would be based on people's ability to reach destinations, rather than on their ability to travel fast. Existing models for planning and evaluating transportation, which have taken vehicle speeds as the most important measure, would make sense if movement were the purpose of transportation. But it is the ability to reach destinations, not movement per se, that people seek from their transportation systems. While the concept of accessibility has been around for the better part of a century, From Mobility to Accessibility shows that the accessibility shift is compelled by the fundamental purpose of transportation. The book argues that the shift would be transformative to the practice of both transportation and land-use planning but is impeded by many conceptual obstacles regarding the nature of accessibility and its potential for guiding development of the built environment. By redefining success in transportation, the book provides city planners, decisionmakers, and scholars a path to reforming the practice of transportation and land-use planning in modern cities and metropolitan areas.
240 pages, Paperback
Published November 15, 2019
7 people are currently reading
45 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 30, 2020
Most U.S. urban planning is focused on "mobility"- making it easy for vehicles (especially automobiles) to move as fast as possible. By contrast, this book argues for "accessibility"- making it easier for people to reach as many destinations as possible. The case for accessibility is simple: most people don't want transportation as a goal in itself, but as a means to reach destinations. So the best transportation policy is one that makes it easier to reach those jobs.
What's the difference? Imagine that someone proposes a new condo building in a busy commercial center. The condos might reduce mobility by increasing neighborhood population and thus neighborhood traffic. But the condos actually increase job accessibility by placing more people within walking distance (or at least a short car/transit distance) of more jobs.
Conversely, imagine a new highway to the edge of suburbia. At first glance, the highway seems to improve mobility by allowing people to drive faster through suburbs. But if the highway shifts people and jobs to the suburb, it might actually reduce accessibility by forcing people to travel longer distances; for some, the time lost by traveling longer distances may outweigh the time gained by faster speeds. This is especially true if the needs of nondrivers are considered; if the highway-created suburbs have little or no public transit, their access to jobs or housing may be reduced.
One might think that increased accessibility and reduced car travel go together. The authors point out that this is not always the case, since accessibility can include accessibility by vehicle. But accessibility might favor different auto-related spending than mobility. For example, a new highway link between two major business districts might increase accessibility by auto and thus making driving easier, while sprawl-creating highway links might increase mobility without increasing acccessibility.
The authors also analyze the level of accessibility in more technical chapters; for example, the chapter on auto accessibility suggests that the most dense metro areas tend to be the most accessible, because what people lose from congestion they get back in reduced distances.
What's the difference? Imagine that someone proposes a new condo building in a busy commercial center. The condos might reduce mobility by increasing neighborhood population and thus neighborhood traffic. But the condos actually increase job accessibility by placing more people within walking distance (or at least a short car/transit distance) of more jobs.
Conversely, imagine a new highway to the edge of suburbia. At first glance, the highway seems to improve mobility by allowing people to drive faster through suburbs. But if the highway shifts people and jobs to the suburb, it might actually reduce accessibility by forcing people to travel longer distances; for some, the time lost by traveling longer distances may outweigh the time gained by faster speeds. This is especially true if the needs of nondrivers are considered; if the highway-created suburbs have little or no public transit, their access to jobs or housing may be reduced.
One might think that increased accessibility and reduced car travel go together. The authors point out that this is not always the case, since accessibility can include accessibility by vehicle. But accessibility might favor different auto-related spending than mobility. For example, a new highway link between two major business districts might increase accessibility by auto and thus making driving easier, while sprawl-creating highway links might increase mobility without increasing acccessibility.
The authors also analyze the level of accessibility in more technical chapters; for example, the chapter on auto accessibility suggests that the most dense metro areas tend to be the most accessible, because what people lose from congestion they get back in reduced distances.
Displaying 1 of 1 review