FROM MOBILITY TO ACCESSIBILITY DR. IR. MARK ZUIDGEEST

FROM MOBILITY TO ACCESSIBILITY DR. IR. MARK ZUIDGEEST

CONTENT A paradigm shift from mobility-based analysis to accessibilitybased analysis Stakeholders in accessibility-based analysis Transport adequacy Factors that affect accessibility The role of accessibility in sustainable urban development (two TED lectures from Brazil) The role of NMT in providing accessibility Case: Accessibility and social exclusion in Ahmedabad, India

LECTURE OBJECTIVES Define mobility and accessibility Discuss the differences between mobility and accessibility Conceptualize accessibility and discuss its relation with urban design List the key factors in an accessibility based analysis Link accessibility with concepts of transport adequacy and sustainable urban development Translate the concept of accessibility into a concrete set of measures Apply accessibility metrics to study social exclusion in a case study Organization: Lecture, case study and discussion

MOBILITY Ability to readily move people from place to place or the ability to travel where you want when you want Key-words: Mode: how to get there? Speed: how fast? Cost: how expensive? Indicators of success: VKT (or VMT) In other words: maximizing movement Definition adapted from Marcus Bowman @ http://www.3gmobility.ws/

MOBILITY FIRST? "Cars provide the automobility people want, fusing speed, flexibility, and adaptability into one travel technology. In a service-based economy faced with global competition, cars provide the most efficient, effective, and productive transportation alternative. Nothing wrong with this, isn t it? Staley and Moore (2008) Mobility First: A New Vision for Transportation in a Globally Competitive Twenty-first Century, Rowman & Littlefield

TRANSPORT ADEQUACY Sustainable transport is more than mobility alone: The 5 A s Affordability Whether transport options have financial costs within the targeted users budget. Availability Whether transport options exist at the location and time users require. Access Whether transport options accommodate users abilities, including people with disabilities and special needs, taking into account the total journey (i.e., door-to-door), i.e. integration of modes. Accessibility Whether transport options available provide access to destinations people need/want to go to Acceptability Whether transport options are considered suitable to users Adapted from source: unknown, in VTPI.org

ACCESSIBILITY Easiness to enter, reach, and use (aka access) The ease of reaching goods, services, activities and destinations (together called opportunities) (aka accessibility) Key-words: Opportunity: Where can you go? Utility: What can you get there? Indicator of success The ability to reach destinations which is not necessarily equal to mobility Definitions adapted from Marcus Bowman @ http://www.3gmobility.ws/ and Todd Litman @ VTPI.org

A PARADIGM SHIFT IS NEEDED "Just as automobiles are machines that provide mobility, urban environments - villages, towns and cities - can be thought of as machines that provide accessibility by minimizing the distance among people and their desired goods, service and activities (shops, schools, jobs, neighbors, etc.). Nothing wrong with this, isn t it? Todd Litman @ VTPI.org

URBAN DESIGN AND TRAFFIC Is all about realizing the potential for interaction or accessibility Source: Daniel Nairn @ discoveringurbanism.blogspot.nl

PARADIGM SHIFT Requires looking holistically at the traffic and transport system, i.e: Distribution in space and time Elements Travel demand Travel patterns Travellers, freight travel market equilibrium Travel supply= Traffic demand Transport services Modes of transport traffic market equilibrium Traffic supply Traffic services Traffic infrastructure

Accessibility MOBILITY VS. ACCESSIBILITY Maximize all three! How is this related to? walking bicycle Modes bus car train Mobility Which means inclusive urban transport planning Figure (l) adapted from: Bowman,M. (web) Mobility vs Accessibility and Transportation Theory

INCLUSIVE PLANNING FOR SUSTAINBLE MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY Source: World Bank, Building Sustainable Transport Systems in Chinese Cities

WHICH INVOLVES MANY DISCIPLINES Transport planners generally focus on mobility, particularly vehicle travel (VKT/VMT). Land use planners generally focus on geographic accessibility (distances between activities). Communications experts focus on telecommunication quality (such as the portion of households with access to telephone, cable and Internet services). Social service planners focus on accessibility options for specific groups to specific services (such as disabled people s ability to reach medical clinics and recreation centers). Source: Todd Litman @ VTPI.org

LAND-USE TRANSPORT INTEGRATION DRIVES ACCESSIBILITY Accessibility to destinations using different modes by different groups of society determines the mobility patterns i.e. modal share and trip lengths for different groups of society in the city that have resulting impact on the energy consumption and emissions hence, is key to sustainable transport and can be achieved through land-use transport integration Todd Litman @ VTPI.org

FACTORS THAT AFFECT ACCESSIBILITY 1. Travel demand Demographics, purpose, destination, time of day 2. Urban form or activity locations Land use factors 3. Mobility Person mobility versus vehicle mobility 4. Mobility options Quantity and quality of transport modes and services available Level-of-Service 5. User information 6. Integration, terminals and parking options Todd Litman @ VTPI.org

LEVEL OF SERVICE FACTORS Source: Todd Litman @ VTPI.org

FACTORS THAT AFFECT ACCESSIBILITY CONT D 7. Affordability 8. Mobility substitutes Teleworking 9. Transport network connectivity 10. Roadway design and management 11. Prioritization of modes

TED LECTURE (OPTIONAL) Eduardo Paes the 4 commandments of cities: Rio de Janeiro http://www.ted.com/talks/eduardo_paes_the_4_commandments_of_cities.html

TED LECTURE (OPTIONAL) Jaime Lerner sings of the city: Curitiba http://www.ted.com/talks/jaime_lerner_sings_of_the_city.html

THE ROLE OF NMT IN PROVIDING ACCESSIBILITY 1. Bicyclists and pedestrians are more efficient users of scarce road space than private motor vehicles, helping to combat congestion 2. Bicycling and walking are the most efficient and environmentally sustainable means of making short trips 3. Improving the efficiency of non-motorized travel is economically vital 4. Promoting safe bicycling and walking are crucial to improving accessibility of the poor, and social cohesion Source: ITDP Sustainable transport: a sourcebook for policy-makers in developing countries: Preserving and expanding the role of NMT

THE ROLE OF NMT IN PROVIDING ACCESSIBILITY CONT D Co-benefits: 5. Pedestrians, bicyclists and cycle rickshaw passengers generate no air pollution, no greenhouse gases, and little noise pollution 6. Bicycling and walking provides important aerobic exercise which is important to combating high cholesterol, obsesity, diabetes and depression 7. Increasing the modal share of bicycling and walking can reduce a country s dependence on imported oil 8. Promoting safe bicycling and walking is vital to reducing over 500,000 premature deaths from traffic accidents each year Source: ITDP Sustainable transport: a sourcebook for policy-makers in developing countries: Preserving and expanding the role of NMT

EXAMPLES Examples from Bogota Source: Despacio.org

SUMMARY: TRAVEL, MOBILITY VS. ACCESSIBILITY Source: Todd Litman @ VTPI.org

MEASURING ACCESSIBILITY: A CASE STUDY Urbanization levels are increasing rapidly Source: Wikipedia.org

AND SO IS THE URBAN DIVIDE So is the urban divide Source: State of the World s Cities 2010/2011

TRANSPORT AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION Transport plays an important role in the levels of mobility and socio-economic participation in any given society. Social exclusion results from both a lack of opportunities as well as a lack of access to these opportunities. Low-income dwellers in developing cities are those that experience high levels of social exclusion. Integrated urban development and transport can prevent that these groups are locked out of the activities that are essential to support a good quality of life. Accessibility metrics can quantify this level of integration as it measures the end benefit of the integrated land use and transport (LUTI) system.

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL The ultimate goal of transport policy is to improve accessibility: The transport system should allow people to travel and participate in activities, and firms to transport goods between locations (van Wee and Geurs, 2011) Policy instruments to improve accessibility, i.e. transport and infrastructure development, compact urban development, smart growth etc. have been considered widely. However, concerns are raised over: Who benefits from improved accessibility? Equity and distributional effects

RATIONALE Travel is a derived demand, i.e. the demand for travel is derived from the demand for spatially-separated activities: 1. Behaviour and choices of people and companies; 2. Locations and type of spatially bound activities, such as residing, working, recreation; 3. Resistance to overcome a distance, in terms of time, costs and other factors of impedance, such as safety & security, comfort etc.

CONCEPTUALIZING ACCESSIBILITY The ability and ease of people to overcome the friction of distance in order to utilize opportunities (or services) at fixed points in space Point of Origin Transport network (Impedance) Point of destination (Utility/Benefit) Source: S. Amer (ITC)

BUT IS MORE COMPLEX IN REALITY our focus Source: Geurs and Ritsema van Eck (2001)

ACCESSIBILITY MEASURES Contour measures (cumulative opportunity) measures the cumulative number of job opportunities that can be reached in a given time or at certain threshold distance from a specified origin. Potential measures (activity based) discounts the number of job opportunities that can be reached from a specified origin.

ACCESSIBILITY MEASURES CONT D Indicator for the effectiveness of the transport system ability to reach employment areas, service locations, centre areas etc. Indicator for the availability of services securing a geographical match between resource allocation and resource needs

CASE STUDY AHMEDABAD, INDIA

AHMEDABAD Ahmedabad is the largest city of Gujarat state on the banks of Sabarmati river and the seventh largest city in India [total area = 190 km 2 ]. Current population Ahmedabad district is 7.2 million. Ahmedabad is connected to all important cities in the country by rail, roads and airways. In 1994 many mills faced liquidation and were officially closed leaving nearly 67,000 of workers jobless. The percentage of housing categorized as slum increased from 17.2% in 1961 to 25.6% in 1991. Ahmedabad is extending its current AMTS public transport system with a Bus Rapid Transit (BRTS) as well as Metro system (MRT). How will the urban poor (potentially) benefit of these public transport systems?

AND ANSWER TYPICAL POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Where is the best place to put new jobs from the perspective of accessibility to jobs for the urban poor? 2. Where to provide new public transport infrastructure capacity to improve levels of accessibility, particularly for the urban poor? 3. How do the planned BRTS and MRT projects enhance levels of accessibility for the urban poor as compared to the existing AMTS public bus system? 4. What portion of the city benefits most from the new public transport options? 5. Which urban poor groups and job types are best served with the current and planned public transport options? 6. Where to provide low income housing to ensure their access to jobs? 7. How is cycling access and egress (e.g. through public bicycle schemes) improving levels of accessibility to jobs 8. What number of urban poor have easy access to the new MRT?

CASE STUDY AHMEDABAD Conceptual framework -Income -Education level Urban poor Physical condition of housing Transport -Modes -Networks Employment -Location of jobs -Job type

INTEGRATED MULTI-MODAL PT NETWORK Current and future public transport modes

3D MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORT NETWORK

NETWORK IMPEDANCES

LOCATIONS OF THE URBAN POOR AND THEIR JOBS

DENSITY OF POTENTIAL WORKERS Slums and chawls combined, Worker Density per 0.25ha Legend slum location river density potential workers [per.25 hect.] 7. - 10 10. - 25 25. - 90 ± 90. - 400 Km 400. - 1,970 0 2.5 5

LOCATIONS OF EMPLOYMENT All job sectors combined, 100 x 100m. grid Legend Employment [ jobs] 1-100 100-250 250-500 500-1000 1000-3000 roads river /lake ± 0 Km 2.5 5 Job sectors: Industrial Retail Government Education Transport and logistics Office and commercial jobs All jobs combined (shown here) Grouped as: Casual labour jobs Salaried jobs* Self employment jobs

LINKING POOR WORKERS AND JOBS Job accessibility by poverty class Prioritized combinations (based on local knowledge Ray (2010)) Urban poor Least poor Middle-poor Very poor Transport network Employment Salaried Self employment Casual labour

SOCIALLY & ECONOMICALLY WEAKER SECTION HOUSING (SEWSH) JnNURM, Basic Services to Urban Poor (BSUP) program The total number of buildings in this location is 976 and expected to relocate 78,080 poor. 21 locations are allocated for SEWSH. Used as a scenario Socially & Economically Weaker Section Housing (SEWSH)

ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS

COUNTING JOB OPPORTUNITIES TO AND FROM SEWSH LOCATIONS 18 18 7 7 11 10 8 10 12 13 14 9 17 5 6 19 16 15 19 16 15 4 Legend sewsh location SEWSH Contour [min] 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-45 ± 20 21 3 river/lake 13 14 17 1 20 45-60 12 5 6 1 roads 8 9 4 AMTS lines 11 Modes: Walking AMTS pointid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 0 21 Name Shahwadi Vatava Vatva Site A & Site B Calico Mill Ahmedabad Cotton Mill, Sarangpur Kesar Hind Mill Ni Chali Rustam Mill Vivekanand Mil Raipur Mill Saraspur Mill Vijay Mill Odhav-1, 187 Odhav-3, 23 Odhav-3, 37 Odhav-3, 38 Odhav -3, 51 Odhav - 3, 86 Vadaj BSUP Ajit Mill, Rakhiyal Km Ishanpur 5 Bag-e-Firdosh2.5 21 3 Legend sewsh location Contour [min] AMTS lines 0-10 BRTS lines 10-20 MRTS metro 20-30 roads 30-45 45-60 river/lake Modes: Walking AMTS BRTS phase 1&2 Metro ± Km 0 2.5 5

Total job opportunities COUNTING JOB OPPORTUNITIES TO AND FROM SEWSH LOCATIONS CONT D 1600000 45-60 1400000 30-45 1200000 20-30 1000000 10-20 800000 0-10 600000 400000 200000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 SEWSH Id. Bars: walking (left), walking + AMTS (middle) and all modes (right) pointid Name 1 Shahwadi 2 Vatava 3 Vatva Site A & Site B 4 Calico Mill 5 Ahmedabad Cotton Mill, Sarangpur 6 Kesar Hind Mill Ni Chali 7 Rustam Mill 8 Vivekanand Mil 9 Raipur Mill 10 Saraspur Mill 11 Vijay Mill 12 Odhav-1, 187 13 Odhav-3, 23 14 Odhav-3, 37 15 Odhav-3, 38 16 Odhav -3, 51 17 Odhav - 3, 86 18 Vadaj BSUP 19 Ajit Mill, Rakhiyal 20 Ishanpur 21 Bag-e-Firdosh

COUNTING JOB OPPORTUNITIES TO AND FROM SEWSH LOCATIONS CONT D Looking at locations: &- 16 &- 14 &- 15 &- 13 = +/- 1 km using the roads &- 12 &- 17 &- 16 &- 1314 &- &- 15 Legend AMTS stops BRTS stops &- SEWSH location AMTS lines 1, 13, 14, 15, 16 BRTS lines roads Meters 0 250 500 employment Km 0 1 2 &- 10 &- 1 &- 4 &- 1 &- 4 &- 5 &- 6 &- 20 Km 0 1 2 Km 0 1 2

exp(-βcij) CALCULATING POTENTIAL JOB OPPORTUNITIES The potential of opportunities for interaction A i j W j f ( cij ) W j exp( c with W j the number of jobs in location j, c ij the generalized cost of travelling between i and j, and f(c ij ) the distance decay function Distance decay function Ahmedabad (β=0.03838): j ij ) 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Travel time [mins]

CALCULATING POTENTIAL JOB OPPORTUNITIES CONT D City-wide Potential accessibility analysis (least poor to salaried jobs) Metric 2: example 1

Potential jobs CITY-WIDE POTENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS (ALL POOR TO ALL JOBS) Job potential using AMTS 0-100000 100001-150000 150001-200000 200001-250000 250001-300000 300001-350000 350001-430000 Job potential using AMTS, BRTS and Metro Ratio of job-based potential accessibility for all potential workers comparing all public transport options with walking and AMTS only. Legend river All Poor ± improvement [%] < 2.5 2.5-5.0 5.0-10.0 10.0-25.0 25.0-50.0 50.0-75.0 75.0-90.0

EFFECT OF PROMOTING BICYCLE FEEDERING FOR SEWSH LOCATIONS (ALL POOR) ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ") 18 ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ") 7 ^_ ") 11 ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ") 10 ^_ ") 9 ") ")12 8 ^_ ") ") 5 ^_ ") 19 6 ^_ ^_ ") 4 ") 1 ") 20 ") 21 ") 13 ") 17 ") 16 ") 15")14 Overall the level of potential accessibility for the locations improves by 135% on average for the 21 locations. ") 3 ") 2 Legend SEWSH potential jobs 200,000 cycling contribution walk + PT BRTS stops ^_ MRTS stations BRTS buslines MRTS lines roads river / lake Km 0 2.5 5 ±

Increase in potential accessibility relative to walking and AMTS 0% 5% 10% 15% EFFECT OF BRTS AND MRT ON CITY-WIDE POTENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY 25,000,000 20,000,000 SEWSH Least poor Middle poor Very poor 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 Walk + AMTS + BRTS 1 + BRTS 2 + MRT Very poor Middle poor Least poor SEWSH 13% 14% 8% 8% 9% 4% SEWSH All poor + BRTS 1 + BRTS 2 + MRT

CONCLUSIONS CASE STUDY There is variation between accessibility to jobs for different urban forms as well as social-economic groups. Accessibility metrics provide valuable insight to decision makers on key issues that concern levels of accessibility for different income groups, different transport modes (and feeder systems) and urban form. This study shows that local planning effort should concentrate on public transport improvement, the NMT feeder function as well as integrated urban land use and transport development strategies, acknowledging the home and job locations of the urban poor.

CONCLUSIONS A paradigm shift from mobility-based analysis to accessibilitybased analysis is needed and requires large stakeholder involvement given the disciplines involved in planning for accessibility. Accessibility is an integral part of providing an adequate transport system, and involves various factors related to land use, transprot, traffic management, demand etc. NMT plays a crucial role in accessibility-based planning. The role of accessibility in sustainable urban development and some best-practices have been illustrated in two TED lectures from Brazil.

PROJECT TEAM: CASE STUDY World Bank Nupur Gupta, Andrew Salzberg and Samuel Zimmerman University of Twente Faculty ITC Mark Zuidgeest, Mark Brussel and Martin van Maarseveen Frans van den Bosch and Nguyen Ngoc Quang Talat Munshi (CEPT University, Ahmedabad)