The accessibility assessment and the regional range of transit-oriented development: An application of schedule accessibility measures in the Nord Pas-de-Calais region
Alexis Conesa
University of Strasbourg
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2018.850
Keywords: TOD in Europe, Multiscale Accessibility, Schedule Accessibility, Land-Use and functions, Regional Planning, Second-order Center
Abstract
Transit-oriented development (TOD) arouses a great deal of interest as the interaction between transport and land use becomes a key topic in regional and urban planning. Even though accessibility is a key driving factor, it is barely assessed with accuracy. In Europe, the scope of TOD effects is large. It strongly influences the development of regional transport. Regarding that, this research brings forward a method that is based on multiscale accessibility measures to evaluate TOD strategy in a metropolitan European region. Hence, it proposes a multiscale accessibility method. On one hand, it introduces the pedestrian accessibility indicators at the local scale. On the other hand, it tackles the schedule accessibility measures in a constraints-based approach at the regional scale. This method is implemented in assessing the potential of TOD strategy in Nord Pas-de-Calais (France). For that, two TOD scenarios are presented. The first one tackles the main metropolitan center but does not include downtown. The second one deals with a second-order peripheral pole. These scenarios present difficulties in gathering both an effective local TOD and a sustainable development policy at the regional scale. However, a TOD center can enhance the intermediate scale urban centrality when using intermediate schedule accessibility measures (for coaches and buses). Furthermore, the indicators about the rail transit system highlight an uncertainty in the regional effects, which can only be solved by applying a major and expensive policy. The final remarks pave the way for further research regarding a full-fledged regional TOD strategy that includes a well-ordered dissemination of TOD centers.References
Balz, V., & Schrijnen, J. (2011). From concepts to projects: Stedenbaan, the Netherlands. In C. Curtis, J. L. Renne & L. Bertolini (Eds.), Transit oriented development. Making it happen. Farnham and Burlington, UK: Ashgate.
Baptiste, H., & L’Hostis, A. (2002). Évaluation multimodale des systèmes de transport en Nord-Pas de Calais et en Languedoc-Roussillon. Enjeux pour l’aménagement de territoires régionaux. Approche par analyse de la qualité des services des transports en commun et de l’accessibilité routière. (Research Report CESA-INRETS). Villeneuve d’Ascq, France: Centre d’Études Supérieures en Aménagement/Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Sécurité.
Benenson, I., Ben Elia, E., Rofé, Y., & Rosental, A. (2016). Estimation of urban transport accessibility at the spatial resolution of an individual traveler. In V. Thakuriah, N. Tilahun, & M. Zellner (Eds.), Seeing Cities Through Big Data (pp. 383–404). New York: Springer Geography.
Benenson, I., Martens, K., Rofé, Y., & Kwartler, A. (2010). Public transport versus private car GIS-based estimation of accessibility applied to the Tel Aviv metropolitan area. Annals of Regional Science, 47, 499–515.
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.
Bristow, G., Farrington, J., Shaw, J., & Richardson, T. (2009). Developing an evaluation framework for crosscutting policy goals: The Accessibility Policy Assessment Tool. Environmental Planning A, 41(1), 48–62.
Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis—ecology, community, and the American dream. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Architectural Press.
Cervero, R. (1989). America’s suburban centers: The land use–transportation link. Boston, MA: Unwin-Hyman.
Cervero, R. (2013). Linking urban transport and land use in developing countries. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 6(1), 7–24.
Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), 199–219.
Chenu, A. (2002). Les horaires et l’organisation du temps de travail. Economie et Statistique, 352–353, 151–167.
Conesa, A. (2010). Modélisation des réseaux de transport collectifs métropolitains vers la structuration territoriale des réseaux. Applications au Nord-Pas-de-Calais et à Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (PhD thesis). Villeneuve-d’Ascq, France: Université de Lille.
Conesa, A. (2012). Accessibilités et discontinuités spatiotemporelles en Nord Pas-de-Calais. Une région carrefour au territoire fragmenté? Territoires En Mouvement, 16(Special Issue: Région, régionalisation, régionalisme), 18–36.
Conesa, A. & Leysens, T. (2015, August) Space and…time! Relevance and limits of schedule databases in accessibility analysis. Paper presented at the ERSA 55th Congress World Renaissance: Changing roles for people and places, Special Session on New Data and Methods in Accessibility Analysis, Lisbon, Portugal.
Conesa, A., & L’Hostis, A. (2011). Defining intermodal accessibility. In A. Banos & T. Thévenin (Eds.), Geographical information and urban transport systems (pp. 53–82). London: Wiley-ISTE Ltd.
Curtis, C., Renne, C. L., & Bertolini, L. (Eds.). (2009). Transit oriented development. Making it happen. Farnham and Burlington, UK: Ashgate.
Daganzo, C. F. (1998). Reversibility of the time-dependent shortest path problem. (Research Report ITS Berkeley). Berkeley, CA: Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California.
Dittmar, H., & Poticha, S. (2004). Defining transit-oriented development: The new regional building block. In H. Dittmar & G. Ohland (Eds.), The new transit town: Best practices in transit-oriented development (pp. 19–40). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Fosset, P., Marilleau, N., Banos, A., Beck, E., Chardonnel, S., Lang, C., Piombini, A., Leysens, T., Conesa, A., André-Poyaud, I., & Thévenin, T. (2016). Exploring intra-urban accessibility and impacts of pollution policies with an agent-based simulation Platform: GaMiroD. Systems, 4(1), 5.
Geurs, K. T., & Ritsema van Eck, J. (2001). Accessibility measures: Review and applications. (Research Report RIVM). Bilthoven, Netherlands: Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu.
Geurs, K. T., & van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2), 127–140.
Hägerstrand, T. (1970) What about people in regional science? Papers of the Regional Science Association, 24, 7–21.
Hägerstrand, T. (1985). Time-geography: Focus on the corporeality of man, society, and environment. In S. Aida (Ed), The science and praxis of complexity: Contributions to the symposium held at Montpellier, France (pp. 193–216). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Handy, S. (1994). Highway blues, nothing a little accessibility can’t cure. Access, 5, 2–8.
Kalsas, B. T., & Aase, E. (1997). Modelling accessibility for public transport in an urban context. Paper presented at the 37th European Congress of Regional Science Association, Rome, Italy.
Kim, H. M., & Kwan, M. P. (2003). Space-time accessibility measures: A geocomputational algorithm with focus on opportunity set and possible activity duration. Journal of Geographical Systems 5, 71–91.
Knowles, R. D. (2012). Transit oriented development in Copenhagen, Denmark: From the Finger Plan to Ørestad. Journal of Transport Geography, 22, 251–261. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.062
Kwan, M. P. (1997). GISICAS: An activity-based travel decision support system using a GIS-interfaced computational-process model. In D. F. Ettema & H. J. P. Timmermans (Eds.), Activity-based approaches to travel analysis (pp. 263–282). New York: Pergamon.
Kwan, M. P. (1998). Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: A comparative analysis using a point-base framework. Geographical Analysis, 3(30), 191–216.
Leinberger, C. (2009). The option of urbanism: Investing a new American dream. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Lenntorp, B. (1978). A time-geographic simulation model of individual activity programs. Human activity and time-geography. In T. Carlstein, D. Parkes & V. Thrift (Eds.), Timing space and spacing time (pp. 62–180). London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Leslie, E., Butterworth, I., & Edwards, M. (2006, October). Measuring the walkability of local communities using Geographic Information Systems data. Paper presented at Walk-21, The Next Steps, 7th International Conference on Walking and Liveable Communities, Melbourne, Australia.
L’Hostis, A. et al. (2009). Concevoir la ville à partir des gares. (Final Report of Bahn.Ville 2 Project). Paris: IFSTTAR, Université Paris Est Marne-la-Vallée.
Liao, F., Arentze, T., Molin, E., Bothe, W., & Timmermans, H. (2015). Effects of land-use transport scenarios on travel patterns: A multi-state super network application. Transportation, 44(1), 1–25.
Litman, T. (2010). Affordable-accessible housing in a dynamic city. Why and how to increase affordable housing development in accessible locations. (Research Report VTPI). Victoria, BC: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Lo Feudo, F. (2014). A TOD scenario for the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region, teaching of an integrated transportation-land use modeling. Paper presented in Mobil. TUM 2014, International Scientific Conference on Mobility and Transport, Sustainable Mobility in Metropolitan Regions, Munich, Germany.
Marshall, W. E., & Garrick, N. W. (2010). The effect of street network design on walking and biking. Transportation Research Record, 2198, 103–115.
McNally, M. G., & Rindt, G. R. (2007). The activity-based approach. In D. Hensher & K. J. Button (Eds), Handbook of Transport Modeling (pp. 53–68). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press [2nd Edition].
Menerault, P., Barré, A., Conesa, A., L’Hostis, A., Pucci, P., & Stransky, V. (2006). Multipolarités urbaines et nouvelles organisations intermodales. (Research Report GRRT). Villeneuve-d’Ascq, France: Groupement Régional de Recherche sur les Transports.
Naess, P. (2011). New urbanism or metropolitan-level centralization? A comparison of the influences of metropolitan-level and neighborhood-level urban form characteristics on travel behavior. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 4(1), 25–44.
Neutens, T., Delafontaine, M., Scott, D. M., & Demaeyer, P. (2012). An analysis of day-to-day variations in individual space-time accessibility. Journal of Transport Geography, 23, 81–91.
Neutens, T., Witlox, F., & Demaeyer, P. (2007). Individual accessibility and travel possibilities: A literature review on Time-Geography. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 7(4), 335–352.
Newman, P., & Jennings, I. (2008). Cities as sustainable ecosystems: Principles and practices. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (1989). Cities and automobile dependence: A sourcebook. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
Ohmori, N., Muromachi, Y., Harata, N., & Ohat, K. (1997). A study on accessibility and going-out behavior of aged people considering daily activity pattern. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 3, 139–153.
Pan, H., Shen, Q, & Liu, C. (2011). Transit oriented development at urban periphery. Insights from a Shanghai Case Study. Transportation Research Record, 2245, 95-102.
Papa, E., Moccia, F. D., Angiello, G., & Inglese, P. (2013). An accessibility planning tool for network transit ooriented development: SNAP. Planum, the Journal of Urbanism, 2(27), 1–9.
Rietveld, P., & Bruinsma, F. (1998). Is transport infrastructure effective? Transport infrastructure and accessibility: Impacts on the space economy. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Rousseau C., Gautier, M., & Chapouthier, A. (2013). Horaires atypiques de travail, le point des connaissances. (Technical Report INRS). Paris: Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité.
Salonen, M., & Toivonen, T. (2013). Modelling travel time in urban networks: Comparable measures for private cars and public transports. Journal of Transport Geography, 31, 143–153.
Schneider, J. (2012). Describing and illustrating the extended transit-oriented development (E-TOD) concept. Retrieved from http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/e-tod.htm.
Scott, D. M., & Horner, M. W. (2008). The role of urban form in shaping access to opportunities. An exploratory spatial data analysis. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 1(2), 89–119.
Shiftan, Y. (2008). The use of activity-based modeling to analyze the effects of land-use policies on travel behavior. Annals of Regional Sciences, 1(41), 79–97.
SRADDT. (2013). Regional Planning Scheme (Schéma Régional d’Aménagement et de Développement Durable du Territoire). Région Nord – Pas-de-Calais.
TRB. (2007). Transit oriented development: Traveler response to transportation system changes. (Research report). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
van Wee, B., Bohte, W., Molin, E., Arentze, T., & Liao, F. (2014). Policies for synchronization in the transport–land-use system, Transport Policy, 31, 1–9.
Vilhelmson, B. (1999). Daily mobility and the use of time for different activities. The case of Sweden. GeoJournal, 48, 177–185. doi: 10.1023/A:1007075524340
Weber, J., & Kwan, M. P. (2003). Evaluating the effects of geographic context on individual accessibility: A multilevel approach. Urban Geography, 8(24), 647–671.
Wu, Y. H., & Miller, H. (2001). Computational tools for measuring space-time accessibility within transportation networks with dynamic flow. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 4(2/3), 1–14.
Wu, F., Shen, J., & Zu, Y. (2011, September). From mobility to accessibility: The key to sustainable development of TOD. Paper presented on the 2011 International Conference on Electrical and Control Engineering (ICECE), Yichang, China.
