2a-lup-en

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

1/48

Sustainable Transport:

A Sourcebook for Policy-makers in Developing Cities

Module 2a

Land Use Planning

and Urban Transport– revised September 2004 –

Division 44

Environment and Infrastructure

Sector project "Transport Policy Advice"

Deutsche Gesellschaft fürTechnische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

2/48

O VERVIEW OF THE SOURCEBOOK

Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook

for Policy-Makers in Developing Cities

What is the Sourcebook?

is Sourcebook on Sustainable Urban Trans-port addresses the key areas of a sustainabletransport policy framework for a developingcity. e Sourcebook consists of 20 modules.

Who is it for?

e Sourcebook is intended for policy-makers indeveloping cities, and their advisors. is targetaudience is reflected in the content, whichprovides policy tools appropriate for applicationin a range of developing cities.

How is it supposed to be used?

e Sourcebook can be used in a number of ways. It should be kept in one location, and thedifferent modules provided to officials involvedin urban transport. e Sourcebook can be easilyadapted to fit a formal short course trainingevent, or can serve as a guide for developing acurriculum or other training program in thearea of urban transport. GTZ is meanwhileelaborating training packages for selectedmodules, being available from June 2004.

What are some of the key features?

e key features of the Sourcebook include:

A practical orientation, focusing on bestpractices in planning and regulation and,

where possible, successful experience indeveloping cities.

Contributors are leading experts in their fields.

An attractive and easy-to-read, color layout.

Non-technical language (to the extentpossible), with technical terms explained.

Updates via the Internet.

How do I get a copy?

Please visit http://www.sutp-asia.org or http://

www.gtz.de/transport for details on how to ordera copy. e Sourcebook is not sold for profit. Anycharges imposed are only to cover the cost ofprinting and distribution. You may also order [email protected].

Comments or feedback?

We would welcome any of your comments orsuggestions, on any aspect of the Sourcebook , bye-mail to [email protected], or by surface mail to:Manfred BreithauptGTZ, Division 44P. O. Box 5180

D - 65726 EschbornGermany

Modules and contributors

Sourcebook Overview and Cross-cutting Issues ofUrban Transport (GTZ)

Institutional and policy orientation

1a. e Role of Transport in Urban DevelopmentPolicy (Enrique Peñalosa)1b. Urban Transport Institutions (Richard Meakin)1c. Private Sector Participation in Transport Infra-

structure Provision, (Christopher Zegras,MIT)1d. Economic Instruments

(Manfred Breithaupt, GTZ)

1e. Raising Public Awareness about SustainableUrban Transport (Karl Fjellstrom, GTZ)

Land use planning and demand management

2a. Land Use Planning and Urban Transport

(Rudolf Petersen, Wuppertal Institute) 2b. Mobility Management (Todd Litman, VTPI)

Transit, walking and cycling

3a. Mass Transit Options(Lloyd Wright, University College London;Karl Fjellstrom, GTZ)

3b. Bus Rapid Transit (Lloyd Wright, University College London)

3c. Bus Regulation & Planning (Richard Meakin) 3d. Preserving and Expanding the Role of Non-

motorised Transport (Walter Hook, ITDP)

Vehicles and fuels4a. Cleaner Fuels and Vehicle Technologies

(Michael Walsh; Reinhard Kolke,Umweltbundesamt – UBA)

4b. Inspection & Maintenance and Roadworthiness(Reinhard Kolke, UBA)

4c. Two- and ree-Wheelers (Jitendra Shah, World Bank; N.V. Iyer, Bajaj Auto)

4d. Natural Gas Vehicles (MVV InnoTec)

Environmental and health impacts

5a. Air Quality Management (Dietrich Schwela,

World Health Organisation)5b. Urban Road Safety (Jacqueline Lacroix,

DVR; David Silcock, GRSP)

5c. Noise and its Abatement(Civic Exchange Hong Kong; GTZ; UBA)

Resources

6. Resources for Policy-makers (GTZ)

Further modules and resources

Further modules are anticipated in the areas ofDriver Training ; Financing Urban Transport ;Benchmarking ; and Car Free Days . Additional

resources are being developed, and an UrbanTransport Photo CD-ROM is available.

http://www.sutp-asia.org/http://www.gtz.de/transporthttp://www.gtz.de/transportmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.gtz.de/transporthttp://www.gtz.de/transporthttp://www.sutp-asia.org/

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

3/48

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

4/48

ii

1. The nature of the problems 1

1.1 Land use for transport purposes 1

1.2 Interaction between land usepatterns, transport and theenvironment 2

1.3 Managing conflicting demandsfor urban space 4

1.4 Design and implementationof land use plans 4

2. Mobility and transport in

international comparison 5

2.1 Results of international surveys 5

2.2 Urban density and modal choice 6

3. Impact of land use on urban

transport at different scales 8

3.1 Property, building and site level;street characteristics 8

3.2 Blocks, residential areas, cityneighbourhoods 9

3.3 Municipal level: urbandevelopment and transport 11

4. Urban growth patterns 13

4.1 Simplified schemes 13

4.2 Transport consequences ofurban growth 13

5. Growth beyond city borders 14

6. Trip generation & mode

choice related to land use

parameters 18

6.1 Basic principles 18

6.2 Land use and travel demand inurban areas 18

7. Influence of transport on

spatial development 20

8. How to organise land use 23

8.1 Legal and organisational set-up 23

8.2 Land use planning in practice 25

8.3 Transport provisions inland use plans 26

Pedestrians 26

Cyclists 27

Public transport access 27

Quality of public transport 27

Private motor vehicles 28

Parking policy 28

9. Land use planning for

reduced travel demand 29

9.1 Basic principles 29

9.2 Shaping urban land usedevelopment for sustainabletransport 30

Dutch ABC-Planning 31

9.3 Regional development forsustainable transport 35

10. A checklist for land useand transport plans 38

10.1 New developments 38

10.2 Public transport and land use 38

10.3 Urban development 38

10.4 Motorised private traffic 39

10.5 Freight transport 39

11. Resources 39

11.1 Internet resources 39

11.2 Bibliography 40

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

5/48

1

Module 2a: Land Use Planning and Urban Transport

1. The nature of the problems

Urban space has to serve a variety of humanneeds: housing, working, social interaction,

leisure, and mobility of persons and goods. Hu-man beings also need nature within their livingareas; green spots for recreation and relaxation.Trees, parks and other greenery helps providehealthy living conditions by cleaning the airof pollutants, absorbing noise, and regulatinghumidity. Beyond this direct anthropocentric(human-centred) perspective, conservation ofnatural habitats is necessary for maintaining thefunctioning of ecosystems of all life on earth.

To create or preserve a livable urban environ-

ment, the requirements of these functionshave to be balanced against each other. Landuse planning serves this process of balancingcompeting demands on limited urban space.e aim of this module is to provide informa-tion and to disseminate experiences in dealing

with relationships between land-use structuresand transport, and to discuss strategies to sup-port the realisation of more sustainable urbantransport by land-use planning. e remainderof this section introduces several of the keyaspects which will be considered in more detailin following sections.

1.1 Land use for transport purposes

Mobility, especially in the form of motorisedtransport requires an increasing share of land,both within cities and in rural areas. Cities inhighly motorised countries dedicate much oftheir urban area for roads; typical figures for US,

Japanese and European cities being about 15 to25 percent (Table 1).

Chinese cities, on the contrary, devote onlyabout 5 to 7 percent of their urban area to roads.On a per-capita basis, in Shanghai each personhas an average of 6 m2 of road space while a

New Yorker has more than 26 m2

. us, there isa clear difference in available road space per per-son. In the course of their historic development,societies with high rates of automobile owner-ship have dedicated increasing shares of urbanspace for automobile use, and at the same timethe population density in these cities has de-creased. Is this the direction cities in developingcountries have to go to, in order to improve traf-fic conditions? Planners in developing countriesoften cite these figures in favour of large roadnetwork construction programs. For example,Shanghai has increased the length and the areaof paved roads from 1991 to 1997 by 18.6 and41.6 percent, respectively, expanding especiallythe network of broad multi-lane and elevatedexpressways. Per capita road area increased from4.7 to 6.5 m2. In light of the international data,this strategy seems to be logical, but it is highlyquestionable whether more roads really providesustainable improvements of the traffic situation.e amount of congestion on main arteries inNew York may be even worse than in Shanghai,as it is in Los Angeles or in London. Althoughpublished cross-city comparisons of averagetraffic speeds indicate that the worst situationis in Bangkok, and that some other megacitiesin Asia also show unsatisfactory traffic flows,this kind of data is not a valid justification forheavy road construction programs. e interac-tion between transport and land use, and thedynamics of related developments must beconsidered. Increasing road space may reducethe quality of the urban environment, preventpeople from walking and cycling, and forcethose households who can afford it to move intocleaner and less noisy exurban areas.

North American urban development modelsin particular do not provide good guidance fordensely populated Asian and Latin Americanregions. e views from Seattle (Photo 1) andSingapore (Photo 2) demonstrate differences ofurban forms and land use for transport. WhileUS development created urban wasteland, Asian

as well as European cities show high densitiesand a variety of functions. Photo 1 illustrates a

City

Road

Density

(km/

km2 )

Road

Share of

Urban

Area (%)

Per

Capita

Road

Area (m2 )

Chinesemegacities

about4 to 6

about5 to 7

about 6

Tokyo 18.9 14.9 10.9

London 18.1 24.1 28.0

New York 8 16.6 26.3

Table 1:

International road space comparisonCCICED/TWG Urban Transport and Environment Workshop,

Beijing, April 1999

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

6/48

2

Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy-makers in Developing Cities

waste of land resources, and raises questions ifthis really can be considered a city.

Living and transport conditions vary sharplybetween developing cities. Transport solutions

have to be adapted to local conditions andneeds. Photo 3 might just as well have beentaken in a US city, in which broad arteriesprovide space for large cars. But this type ofroad does not reflect the needs of the peopleliving without a car in a non-car environment(Photo 4). What conclusion can be drawn forthe priorities in urban transport policy?

e examples show that simple comparisonsof average road space between cities do not inthemselves justify additional road infrastructure

investments. Car ownership rates differ signifi-cantly, as does trip demand and travel distances.

A car-oriented life-style is out of reach of mostpeople in developing countries. It is true thatprivate car ownership increases at high rates,as well as the demand for other motorisedtransport services. is leads to overload ofexisting roads, congestion, and environmentaldegradation of urban space. But internationalexperience clearly shows that comprehensiveconstruction programs will not be able to cope

with the automobiles’ demand for road space.Planners all around the world know thatcar-based urban transport is not a sustainabledevelopment path – neither with respect tourban functions nor to the environment. Onlypublic transport can assure mobility in large cit-ies. And only by preserving good conditions for

walking and cycling it is possible to maintain asatisfactory level of urban quality.

What kind of urban development and what landuse planning supports sustainable transport?

1.2 Interaction between land use

patterns, transport and the

environment

e spatial distribution of housing, working,shopping, leisure, and other activities deter-mines average trip distances in urban transport.High population density, as well as a mixture ofland uses for various social and economic activi-ties, maintain low distances between origins

and destinations of urban trips. Conversely,low-density development and large road areas

hoto 1

eattle, an example of US-style of urban land use.

Photo 2

Singapore, an examplef Asian/European-style

urban land use.

hoto 3akarta, main road.

Photo 4 Jakarta, small road.

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

7/48

3


increase trip lengths and lead to a higher shareof automobile trips.

By influencing the spatial structure of locationsin the urban environment, land use planning

can contribute to a minimisation of kilometresdriven, and support a high transit share. Denseand mixed-use development helps to keep walk-ing and cycling attractive.ese are the mostenvironmentally friendly transport modes. In-ternational comparative studies have indicatedthat there are close links between populationdensity, motor vehicle use and per-capita energyconsumption in the transport sector. Given thehigh specific emissions per kilometre of motorvehicles in developing countries, the amount of

traffic generated by unfavourable spatial struc-tures directly affects air quality.

“Awareness has risen that the urban

planning paradigms of the past

need to be changed, and sprawl

development needs to be combatted.”

Further, oil consumption and greenhouse gasemissions will inevitably increase rapidly if

transport and land use policies in developingcountries follow the kind of spatial transforma-tion which the highly motorised countries haveundergone. Figure 1 illustrates the “viciouscycle” of car traffic leading to deteriorated livingconditions, heading to suburbanisation andtransforming the rural areas into settlements, in

which households are dependent on the privatecar for daily mobility. Increasing car use againfollows the traffic spiral, when more roads arebuilt to satisfy car commuters, transformingprecious urban land into wasteland as shown inthe Seattle photo (Photo 1).

In Europe, Japan and even North America theawareness has risen that the urban planningparadigms of the past need to be changed, andsprawl development needs to be combatted.ese insights are based on local experiences, onthe observation that congestion and travel-timesare ever-increasing, and on the monetary bur-dens caused for private and public budgets.

Additionally, there are the concerns for the local

environment, especially air pollution, noise,groundwater pollution from run-off, loss of soil

functions, and loss of biodiversity. And thenthere are the global concerns with respect toenergy resources and greenhouse gas emissions.International climate policy has begun to initi-

ate reduction commitments, which put energy-saving land use policies on the agenda. ishas contributed to a critical attitude towardsthe amount of automobile use – some nameit automobile dependency – in Europe andincreasingly also in North America. e KyotoProtocol is just the beginning; future negotia-tions will require the developing countries toalso contribute to greenhouse gas emissionreductions.

How can urban land use planning contribute to

future responsible mobility with less emissionsand energy consumption?

Fig. 1

Traffic and landuse interaction(traffic spiral).Wuppertal Institute VE-151e / 95

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

8/48

4


1.3 Managing conflicting demands for

urban space

Mobility of passengers and of goods is a neces-

sary element of social and economic interaction,

forming the basis for progress and welfare bybringing talents and skills together. Division

of labour increases productivity, at the cost

of increasing transport activities. Migrationand population growth cause additional

requirements for housing and other land uses.

Individualisation of lifestyles and liberalisation

of economic activities transform into marketforces which compete for scarce urban space.

Livable cities need to balance economic, social

and environmental requirements against limited

space. Besides the competition between hous-ing, shopping, green areas and roads within

the traditional urban boundaries, there is the

problem of occupying agricultural land bysuburbanisation of the various urban functions.

Historically, cities have been located in fertile

areas where agricultural production could feed

the urban population.

“Land-use planning should aim

at creating transport-avoidingstructures.”

Even if current agricultural production in devel-oping countries may be sufficient in total quan-

tity, loss of resources for nearby food production

increases the volume of goods transported over

longer distances. Sustainable regional develop-ment, on the contrary, would aim at the preser-

vation of agricultural production within close

proximity to the urban population. In general,

regional manufacturing would provide oppor-tunities for less transport activities, but under

current transport price conditions other cost

factors dominate the spatial decisions, resultingin larger production and distribution networks.

Although market pressures in most countries work in favour of low-density, space-consuming

settlement decisions, land-use planning should

aim at creating transport-avoiding structures.Involvement of the public may support this

concept, and back the decisions of plannersagainst interest groups.

1.4 Design and implementation of

land use plans

Land use planning is necessary to assure soundurban and balanced regional development.

European and Japanese municipalities have along-standing tradition in land use planning,and have made some important achievements inmaintaining good urban structures. In develop-ing countries there is an increasing awarenessof the need for steering urban development inorder to avoid unsustainable structures, butinstitutional capacities and legal provisions forland use planning typically are weak. Withoutacknowledgement of the interactions betweenland use planning, urban growth and transport

development, no sustainable transport system will emerge, neither with respect to economicnor to social and environmental criteria. Settingpriority on road network capacity extensions

without a clear vision of spatial developmenthas failed to mitigate congestion everywherein the world. An increase in traffic capacity,especially on commuter expressways in urbanareas, results in a rise of traffic demand thaterodes much of the capacity-enhanced trafficimprovements.

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

9/48

5


2. Mobility and transport in

international comparison

e terms “mobility” and “transport” are often

equated. Mobility is reduced to movement,standing simply for the change of locationand transport itself. e number of kilometresdriven becomes the focus of attention andoften becomes the indicator of mobility. Asa consequence other options for realising thedestinations and purposes that are connected

with mobility are not taken into consideration.In fact, a person driving a lower number ofkilometres can be more flexible and mobileif he has to drive or even cycle/walk a lower

number of kilometres for fulfilling his activitiesthan somebody who depends on a car in orderto reach his destinations. In this sense, mobilityshould be measured in a wider sense relating to

“potential access”, rather than simply to “kilo-metres of movement”.

e following section provides an internationalcomparison of mobility and transport charac-teristics, and explains the connections betweenurban density and the choice of transportmodes.

Fig. 2

International travel

time survey data.Schafer and Victor, 2000

2.1 Results of international surveys

International mobility surveys have indicatedthat the number of personal trips and thetime spent for travel is remarkably constant

throughout the world (see Figure 2). is isdespite the fact that the conditions for mobilityvary considerably between different regions withrespect to income and spatial structures. Clearlythere are similar time constraints leading – onaverage – to locational choices and behaviouralpatterns which limit daily overall travel time toabout 60 to 70 minutes.

Transport Pattern Asian

cities

European

cities

US

cities

Car ownership (passenger cars per 1000 persons) 109 392 608

Vehicle ownership (vehicles per 1000 persons) 224 452 749

Specific road length (metres per capita) 1.1 2.4 6.7

Road density (metres of road per urban ha) 122 115 89

NMT (walk+ bicycle+ pedicab, % of work trips) 19 18 5

Role of public transport (% of all passenger km) 48 23 3

Car use per person (km per capita per yr) 1,397 4,519 11,155

Energy use per person(private passenger transport / capita (MJ))

6,969 17,218 55,807

Table 2: International urban transport patterns (1990)Kenworthy and Laube, et al., 1999

Note: The Asian cities

included in this average

are Tokyo, Singapore, Hong

Kong, Kuala Lumpur, Bang-

kok, Jakarta, Surabaya and

Manila.

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

10/48

6


e similarity in mobility patterns, however, re-fers only to travel times, not to travel distances.It is necessary to differentiate between mobilityas a basic demand, and transport as a derived

demand. Studies about the relations betweenincome, car ownership and transport structuresshow major differences with respect to distancesdriven and transport modes used between

Asian, European and American cities (see Table2). Where private cars are available to the aver-age citizen, per-capita kilometres travelled arehigh, and share of public transport drops. Sinceaccording to Figure 2 daily travel time is moreor less constant over various regions and societ-ies, this leads to the conclusion that use of fastermodes does not bring average time savings but

rather enables people to make longer trips in thesame time. Conversely, maintaining dense andmixed-use settlement structures would allowpeople to participate in as many activities whileusing slower transport modes compared to anautomobile society with disperse settlementsand an extensive road network.

e differences between Asia, Europe and North America given in Table 2 are significant. But also within the three regions major differences be-tween cities can be found according to the urbandevelopment philosophy followed. Several Asiancities took decisions to discourage private car useand improve the public transport system, firstlyby upgrading bus systems and later by buildingor expanding urban rail systems. Examples ofthis development path include Singapore, HongKong, Tokyo and Seoul. Other cities – Bangkok,Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta, for example – aretaking a different trajectory, trying to cope withrapid motorisation mainly through road build-ing (Barter, 2000).

2.2 Urban density and modal choice

e decisions taken in favour of one of thesetwo major development paths do not onlyconcern the competitive relationship betweenthe urban transport modes, but also shapeurban development beyond the transport sector.

Where transport is more based on transit, a citygrows differently than in a car-oriented develop-ment paradigm.

e specific character of an urban transportsystem – in the table ranked according to the

share of private vehicle use in commuting - isof course not only a consequence of transportpolicy and land use strategies but also stronglyinfluenced by average income. In low income

regions where car ownership rates are low,dependency on public transit is generally high.e per capita living space area is low – inChina about 6 m2 per person, compared toabout 60 m2 in the US and about 30 m2 in

Japan – and urban population density is high,enabling transport companies a viably high levelof patronage along fixed routes.

“Density [is] a good initial indicator

of a transit-friendly urban form.”

Transit-oriented urban development aims atsupporting structures which encourage publictransport and discourage car use. But land useplanning can only resist the spread of car useto a limited extent. is has been exemplifiedby the European experiences, where a degree ofcar-based sprawl has taken place despite landuse planning efforts. But the results are muchbetter than in the US, and the Asian examplesof Singapore and Hong Kong (and recent Euro-

pean examples such as Zurich) show that publictransport can gain high acceptance in cities

with relatively high income.

Figure 3 indicates that lower urban densityincreases car dependency, with all the associatednegative consequences for energy consumptionand greenhouse gas emissions from the trans-port sector.

e graph relies upon the same database asTable 3. e general findings and main conclu-sions are supported by the results of a worldwidesurvey conducted by the International Associa-tion of Public Transport (UITP) (Rat, 2001),although the exact figures differ somewhat.Table 4 relates urban density to the aggregatedshares of walking, cycling and public transport,and gives data on travel cost as a percentageof GDP, annual per-capita travel distances andrelated energy consumption.

e parameter “population density” stressed byNewman & Kenworthy and UITP is certainly

not the only element of a transit-oriented urbantransport system. Gorham (1998) explains:

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

11/48

7


City Population

(million)

Population

density /

km2

Private

Vehicle

(%)

Public

Transit

(%)

Foot/

Bike/

other (%)Bangkok 6.4 14,955 60.0 30.0 10.0

Kuala Lumpur 3.0 5,693 57.6 25.5 16.9

Jakarta 8.2 17,056 41.4 36.3 22.3

Tokyo 31.8 7,099 29.4 48.9 21.7

Manila 9.3 19,783 28.0 54.2 17.8

Singapore 2.7 8,697 21.8 56.0 22.2

Hong Kong 5.5 28,405 9.1 74.0 16.9

Fig. 3

Annual car use per capita (1990)

and urban

population density.Kenworthy & Laube, et. al, 1999

k m

Table 3: Modal split in trips to work in Asian cities, early 1990sBased on O’Meara Sheeden, 2001, Kenworthy & Laube and others (1999), population and density from

http://www.demographia.com

Recent research on the subject, however, has de-em- phasised the role of density per se, because, first, asa concept and measuring tool, it is often vague andimproperly used, second, it may not be a particu-larly accurate measuring tool for describing those

features of land use which most influence travelbehaviour, and third, there may be other land use policy tools which are more effective in inducingsustainable travel behaviour than simply density.

Other aspects of urban forms – that is, otherthan density – include land use mix, orientationof buildings towards the street, street patternand layout, street widths, and various otherurban design micro-features. A more detaileddiscussion of these parameters follows in Sec-tion 3 below.

Notwithstanding the importance of these otherfactors, however, density does seem to be a goodinitial indicator of a transit-friendly urban form,and a plausible basis for general reasoning aboutmodal share and trip distances. High densityurban structures automatically limit the spacefor cars, and mobility needs can better be servedby public transport, walking or cycling. Photo5 demonstrates space requirements of about 80travelers either going by car, by bus or walkingand cycling. e more environment-friendly

modes make better use of road space.

http://www.demographia.com/http://www.demographia.com/

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

12/48

8


City Population

Density per ha

% walking

+ cycling +

transit

Journey cost

(% of GDP)

Annual travel

(km/cap)

Energy

(Mj/cap)

Houston 9 5 14.1 25,600 86,000Melbourne 14 26 - 13,100 -

Sydney 19 25 11 - 30,000

Paris 48 56 6.7 7,250 15,500

Munich 56 60 5.8 8,850 17,500

London 59 51 7.1 - 14,500

Tokyo 88 68 5 9,900 11,500

Singapore 94 48 - 7,850 -

Hong Kong 320 82 5 5,000 6,500

Table 4: Urban density and related transport parametersRat (UITP), 2001

Photo 5

Space requirements

of various modes.Poster from the Stateof North Rhine-Westphalia,

seen in Muenster, Germany

3. Impact of land use on urban

transport at different scales

Specific aspects of the transport and landuse context described above by city-to-citycomparisons show up at all geographical scales,in specific manifestations. e influence ofdifferent land use parameters on transport is

discussed below.

3.1 Property, building and site level;

street characteristics

Trip frequency, trip distances and modal choicerelated to home, site and street characteristicshave recently been analysed in the Netherlands(Meurs/Haaijer, 2001). e type of home (flat,detached/semi-detached, terraced house, withor without garden) influences personal mobility

choice, as well as street characteristics (e.g. cycleroute at front door, easy or restricted parking,

traffic calming). However, stronger effects were attributed to variations in neighbourhoodcharacteristics.

e traditional urban housing type of “block wing tip edge building” (perimeter develop-ment) forms dense blocks along urban streets;this is still the typical configuration in andaround many central districts of European cit-ies. (Figure 4 gives an example from Berlin.) Inmany Asian cities this type of building prevailsin quarters built up to the 1930s. Later on, lineland development became the ruling paradigmof urban planners worldwide – with the con-squence of increasing trip lengths.

e traditional road-side blocks of up to 6floors have a number of advantages for sustain-able mobility: Immediate access from houseentrance to the pedestrian walkways, and close

visual as well as acoustic contact between in-habitants and the pedestrian areas which make

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

13/48

9


walking comfortable and safe. Building frontstypically are narrow, often with the combina-tion of shops at ground level with flats on theupper floors. is type of mixed-use housing

allows high accessibility to a large variety ofurban functions within short walking distances. Access to bus and tram stops is easy, too. It hasbeen found that the longer walking distancesto bus and tram stops along rows of housesare accepted where building fronts are varied.Different styles and ground floor uses are to bepreferred from that point of view, rather thanlarge front lengths and monotonous faces ofbuildings.

With increasing motor vehicle traffic on the

roads, however, living conditions are affectedby noise and emissions. Reacting to these worsening environmental conditions, designs ofbuildings were changed in a way that the liv-ing rooms no longer faced the streets but wereturned backward. Visual contact and publicsafety are suffering from this development,

which makes walking less comfortable and safe.

In the second half of the 20th century, lineland development became popular amongstarchitects and developers, locating buildings no

longer front-by-front to the roads but at somedistance from streets, surrounded by greens

and bushes. (See high-rise buildings in theupper part of Figure 4.) ese buildings arenot favourable locations for shops and servicesbecause of the distance to the street and to

passers-by, resulting in increasing separationof functions. Although this site structure mayimprove environmental conditions, this typeof development is less attractive to pedestrians,increasing average trip distances and reducingaccessibility. e paradigm shift with respectto buildings has changed mobility preferences.

Where the distances are growing and roads are wider, and parking lots are provided around theisolated buildings, car use becomes more com-fortable than walking and public transport.

3.2 Blocks, residential areas, city

neighbourhoods

Land use parameters at the neighbourhoodlevel include density (in terms of addresses perhectare) and multiple configuration of func-tions, with easy access to all daily destinationsby foot; locations for shopping, services, leisurelocations, parks, etc. Most activities are made

within the residential area as very short trips.is should focus attention of transport plan-

ners on the local level. Good pedestrian andbicycle facilities, connections through blocks

Fig. 4

Block wing edgebuildings (Berlin)(architectural model).City of Berlin

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

14/48

10


for non-motorised traffic, parking schemes andshort distance access transit (below 300 metres)are important variables for encouraging choiceof sustainable transport modes. Distance to

public transport stops strongly influences modechoice (Wegener/Fürst, 1999).

e traffic load on local streets determines thequality of living in the residential area. Trafficcalming increases the share of walking andcycling. High density of homes, achieved eitherby small dwellings or by multi-storey buildings,generates sufficient concentrated transportdemand to support good public transit supply.

Space requirements for different transportmodes vary significantly, as already illustrated

by Photo 5. is is important for consideringthe kind of mode to be supported by urbantransport planning. In order to provide mobilityopportunities for a certain amount of personstravelling, buses, pedestrians and cyclists makebetter use of scarce urban space than automo-biles. Approximate maximum passenger flowsper lane is given in Table 5.

Car ownership inevitably requires urban landconsumption even when the car is not moving,thus reducing the opportunities for other land

uses. Roadside parking occupies scarce landresources needed for improved public space, bus

lanes, bicycle lanes, and improved traffic flow.One passenger car requires about 10 to 15 m2 atthe roadside. For parking lots one has to calcu-late twice as much use of land space to account

for access and egress (Gorham, 1998). For arough estimate of the accumulated land cover-age, every car can be estimated to be associated

with 1.5 parking places at various locations(home, office, shopping, etc.), and two-thirdsof these places can be assumed to be off-street.is leads to more than 3 km2 parking arearequirements for an urban fleet of 100,000 cars.

Private passenger cars should park in commer-cially operated parking lots or garages, or onprivate property. Vendors should leave space for

pedestrians, and bus stops also require space.Driving behaviour and speed is directly relatedto road design. e faster a driver is going, thehigher the risk of an accident, and the moresevere the consequences. In traffic situations

with cars, cyclists and pedestrians sharingroads, the highest risk is on the side of the “softtargets”. Figure 5 demonstrates the relationbetween pedestrian mortality when hit by acar and vehicle speed. Limitation of maximumtraffic speeds to 30 km/hr has been identified as

a suitable and cost-effective measure to reduceaccident and fatality rates.

Road width in residential areas should notexceed 3.5 m, to prevent drivers from going toofast. Figure 5 shows the risk of fatal injuries topedestrians in car accidents. Road width reduc-tion may enable provision of additional space forpedestrians and/or bicyclists.

Average travel speed on urban roads in housingareas is in any case mostly below 30 km/h. On

busy roads and in densely built areas, reductionof peak speeds via a speed limit of 30 km/h willnot affect average car travel times significantly.

ere is a well-known relationship between the width of a road and driving speed. While inmost countries the maximum allowed urbanspeed is 50 km/hr, wide lanes and lack of policeenforcement lead to much higher peak speeds,thus increasing accident risk and especiallyendangering crossing pedestrians. e extremelybroad road arteries for instance in Chinese cities

(Photo 6) tempt car drivers into higher speedsof 80 km/hr or even more between intersections,

These figures are not maximum values or typical speeds for all situations,but rather present the space required, under various conditionsThe width of a lane is assumed as 3.4 mOne user per pedal cycle

+ 1.1 users per motorcyclell public transport modes are assumed to be 80 % full.

Mode

Capacity

scenario (users/

hour/lane*)

Speed (km/h)Space demand

(m2 per user)

Pedestrian 23,500 4.7 0.7

Pedal cycle + 5,400 12 8

Motorcycle ++ 2,400 12 17.5Car (urban street) 1,050 12 40

Car (expressway) 3,000 40 47

Bus (55 seats) 7,700 10 4.5

Bus or Tram (150 seats) 18,000 10 2

Tram (250 seats) 24,000 10 1.5

Metro rail 40,000 25 2.5

able 5: Space requirements for various transport modes,

nder various operating conditions.#Nulty, 2002

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

15/48

11


increasing not only risk and impact of accidentsbut also exhaust and noise emissions. Becauseroad capacity restraints typically are caused bythroughput at junctions, rather than by road di-

mension of the sections in between, road widthcould be reduced without negative impact interms of congestion and travel time. is couldeither lead to improvements for pedestrians andcyclists, or provide options for greening alongstreets (Photo 7).

Ecological quality of urban greens along roadsmay not be high with respect to biodiversity offlora and fauna, but there is a positive effect interms of walking comfort and microclimate, as

well as for clearing run-off waters. ese advan-

tages have to be balanced with the road arearequirements.

3.3 Municipal level: urban

development and transport

Most cities in developing countries, but also inNorth America, show a functional classificationof land uses varying according to the distancefrom the city centre (central business district orCBD). In the centre where land prices are high-est we find high-rise buildings mainly for officesand some shopping facilities. (Some cities stillhave a traditional CBD core within the modernCBD). Housing density is low because of highprices. e inner city areas surrounding theCBD show a mixture of housing and commer-cial activities, typically in block buildings of 4 to6 floors. In the outer urban areas, older housing

areas with detached and semi-detached housesmix with concentrations around sub-centres.

Additional housing development concentrates

near the outer boundaries of the city.Figure 6 shows a model of this kind of urbanstructure, and indicates that the highestconcentration of air pollutants from motorvehicles occurs on the radial arteries linkingsuburban settlement areas with the city centre.is is especially the case for carbon monoxide,hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, and dieselparticulates.

Basically, this radial type of urban structureprovides relatively good conditions for publictransport, as long as the main working sites andshopping facilities are in or near the centre. emain radial arteries and the circle roads canbe served by highly efficient rapid transit lines.Berlin is a good example of this, with an urbanrapid-rail system already established a centuryago. is network has supported a rail-oriented,

Fig. 5

Probability of pedestrian fatality

by impact speed.Barter et al., 2000

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

�

Photo 6

A typical urban road in Shanghai.Karl Fjellstrom

Photo 7

Urban road space with green belt (Frankfurt).

Te green strip is the Zeil, one of Europe’s

premiere shoppingstreets.

Karl Fjellstrom

P r o b a b

i l i t y

o f p e d e s t r i a

n

f a t a l i t y

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

16/48

12


decentralised development, and is still in excel-

lent shape today. Similar networks designed and

constructed in the early 20th century exist inmany European cities. Curitiba, Brazil is prob-

ably the best example of radial, transit-oriented

development in the developing world, with its well-known Bus Rapid Transit system serving

five high density corridors.

In the last century, however, cities have un-

dergone various re-structuring phases. First,

manufacturing facilities and other transport-in-tensive commercial activities have moved from

central areas to cheaper locations at the fringes,changing also the directions of working trips.

Commuting from housing areas to the fringe

areas is more complicated by public transportthan travelling to the centre, because the transit

network has not been designed for it. Commut-

ers tend to shift to private cars.

e second wave of restructuring of the urban

landscape changed the direction and destina-tions of shopping trips. With increasing car

ownership, consumer preferences shifted to

larger shopping facilities with extended parking

space. Large supermarkets and mega-stores took

advantage of the fact that land at the outskirts

of the cities was cheap. Public transport onlyholds minor shares of these shopping trips.

In recent decades, company headquarters and

other offices have also moved to the edges of the

cities, while CBDs typically retain consumer

and business services.

As a result of these processes, the previously

radially centred trip patterns are no longer

prevalent. Although city centres still attract

high volumes of both public transport trips

and individual car traffic, a major share of trips

are made from suburb to suburb. In European

cities and to a greater extent in North America,

public transport cannot serve such dispersed

activities without substantial subsidies.

What lessons can be learnt from these processes

with respect to developing countries? Firstly,

it has to be kept in mind that there are still

major differences between North American and

European cities, and in comparison to develop-

ing cities. In Europe, relatively stringent land

use planning has steered development – at leastto a certain extent. Public transport continues

to play an important role. City centres have

maintained the role of high-class shopping areas,

and a livable urban environment still attracts

pedestrians. Public investments and subsidies

for public transport allow a sufficient level of

service to “pull” customers towards buses and

trams. In combination with these supply poli-

cies, parking restrictions, restricted access to city

centres for private cars, and pedestrian zones

discourage car use. is kind of "push-and-pull"strategy is relatively successful.

Developing cities show a variety of spatial

development patterns according to the historical

phase in which major growth waves occurred,

and government policies. While in centrally-

planned state economies, strict migration

control prohibited formation of illegal and

semi-legal settlements of the urban poor in the

outskirts of cities (squatter development), such

forces have driven radial urban development forinstance in ailand and Indonesia.

ig. 6

Urban structure andir pollution (examplef radial development).uppertal Institute VE-215e/95

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

17/48

13


4. Urban growth patterns

Different models of urban growth result invarious transportation systems and mobility

patterns. e consequences of urban growthpatterns are explained in the following sections.

4.1 Simplified schemes

It is useful to analyse the urban structure andthe distribution of activities in space, in order tounderstand current and future transport demandpatterns. e following examples (see Figure 7)provide some insights into urban dynamics.

“Te radially oriented city ... alows

supply of high-volume rail and bus

systems.”

e model of concentric zone developmentis rather simplified; in reality we find ringsegments with specific land uses, as well assegmentation of the population according to so-cio-economic parameters: High-income groupssettled in the up-wind side of the city while lowincome people in the down-wind side suffered

from industrial activities. In some cities, sometypes of locations have concentrated in certainsectors. is has been especially marked inearly-industrialised city regions. Another struc-tural element has arisen from the fact that thegrowth of cities led to the inclusion of formerlyindependent cities, which became sub-centres.

e differences in urban development structureshave consequences for the demand and supplyof transport services. e radially oriented city

will show articulated arteries leading to the

heart of the city, allowing supply of high-vol-ume rail and bus systems. e sectoral develop-ment type will not have a clearly structureddemand, and will not support high-volumepublic transport but provides chances for shortdistances between housing and other func-tions; non-motorised modes may reach highshares. e multiple-nuclei type provides evenmore problematic conditions for efficient publictransport supply, and distances often may betoo long for non-motorised trips. Here, the

private passenger car will attain high marketshares, especially as average incomes increase.

4.2 Transport consequences of urban

growth

As has been seen, it is important to keep thespatial conditions in mind when discussingtransport options. e current distributionof land uses and activities within the urbanboundaries is a result of historical developments.e transport system now has to serve a broadrange of urban structures, which partly evolved

in times of former transport modes, and offersunfavourable conditions to current traffic. Ingeneral terms: Urban design and modern trans-port often do not fit together.

Until the 19th century, the diameter of cities didnot exceed a distance that could be traversed byfoot; the street patterns and road dimensions

were designed according to the needs of horse-cars. e growth of the cities during the indus-trialisation process brought an urgent need forfast mass transport; streetcars and buses served

the arteries, leading to a kind of decentralisedcentralisation. People could reach their homes

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

Fig. 7

Urban developmentschemes.

The Univer sity of Nor th Carolina at

Charlotte, 2002. http://www.uncc.

edu/~hscampbe/landuse/b-

models/B-3mods.html

http://www.uncc.edu/~hscampbe/landuse/b-models/B-3mods.htmlhttp://www.uncc.edu/~hscampbe/landuse/b-models/B-3mods.htmlhttp://www.uncc.edu/~hscampbe/landuse/b-models/B-3mods.htmlhttp://www.uncc.edu/~hscampbe/landuse/b-models/B-3mods.htmlhttp://www.uncc.edu/~hscampbe/landuse/b-models/B-3mods.htmlhttp://www.uncc.edu/~hscampbe/landuse/b-models/B-3mods.htmlhttp://www.uncc.edu/~hscampbe/landuse/b-models/B-3mods.html

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

18/48

14


by walking from public transport stops. Maindevelopment took place within walking andcycling distance from these stops.

Broad availability of private cars since the

1950s and 1960s began to support sprawl oflow-density settlements. In highly motorisedregions, this development is still continuing. Indeveloping countries, the process is on the rise.Due to this revolution in transport technology,but also as a consequence of social changes

within societies, the urban zones around CBDsbecame less attractive, and public securityvanished. Especially in the US, social stabilityeroded in parts of the city, and those who couldafford to move settled in the suburbs. Although

in recent years remarkable efforts have beenmade to revitalise American cities, the distribu-tion of wealthy citizens is still according to adonut-type of pattern: the middle and upperclasses are concentrated in a suburb-ring aroundthe traditional city, with the city centre losingeconomic momentum.

Overlay of concentric-model developmentand local particularities has led to numerousvariations in urban development, as shown inthe schemes in Figure 7. Social segregation in

housing and flourishing light manufacturing within cities may lead to situations where someemployees still live quite near to their workplaces, but with more rapid social and eco-nomic developments taking place in the outerareas. It has to be kept in mind, too, that moreand more non-working trips become important,as shopping malls and other services moveoutward. is is especially the case in middle-income Asian and Latin America regions,following trends in Europe and the US. ecore cities lost population, and the surround-ing areas change from agricultural to housingareas. Most large cities transcend traditionalmunicipal boundaries and are now extendedurban (metropolitan) areas spanning hundredsof square kilometres, and integrating previouslyindependent villages and towns.

5. Growth beyond city borders

Due to population growth, but also causedby changed preferences of settlers and com-

mercial investors, urban functions are spreadingbeyond traditional city borders. e process ofsuburbanisation shows various faces in differentparts of the world and under different political,social and economic circumstances. For middleand high income groups, the basic reason forprivate households moving outward, away fromthe dense urban areas to more rural structuredplaces, are lower market prices for single-familyhomes and better environmental qualities. Inlow income countries with high population

growth, semi-legal settlements and morerecently large housing estate developments (seeFigure 20) drive the outward growth. Subur-banisation and rural settling of private housingoften leaves daily activity patterns still orientedtowards the cities, and initiates transport flowsover longer distances. While high-income com-muters and shoppers increasingly use the privatecar, travel conditions for people with low in-come depending on public transport are difficultand deteriorating in most developing cities.

Early experiences with growth of urbanised ar-eas in industrialised countries may be useful todiscuss options for steering the development indeveloping countries. Following economic andsocial development, and rising average incomes,similar trends are emerging in developingcountries, and can be expected to strengthen.In Europe, the relatively densely built-up citystill dominates in terms of population densityand centrality of functions, but suburbanisa-tion has changed the distribution of functions.

e interaction between urban developmentand transport infrastructural development, asdescribed in Figure 1 (“traffic spiral”) has en-abled people to live outside, and work and shop

within the traditional city boundaries. Also,the city is still the cultural and social centre.e resulting travel demand is based to a largedegree on the private car, but many Europeancities have kept a type of semi-centralised settle-ment that enables travelers to use regional raillines, linking sub-centres with central urban

areas. In the US, cities have lost their structures,following the various waves of decentralisation

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

19/48

15


enabled by ownership of private cars, lack ofland use regulations, low gasoline prices, andconsumer preferences for large housing lots.

How are the trends of urban area growth and

suburbanisation materialising in developingcountries? ere are many different patternsof growth to be observed worldwide. Urbanboundaries are spreading outward; a phenom-enon even visible from space. Satellite imagingprovides pictures of various regions (see for in-stance http://www.geog.uu.nl/fg/UrbanGrowth,featuring the West African case of Ouagadou-gou (Burkina Faso), and other examples). Dueto only recent availability of this kind of tech-nology, only trends since about the mid 1980s

can be traced. e pattern that mostly occursis development along existing radial arteriesand newly built ring roads (see also Section 7),followed by fill-in of the remaining segments.

ere are not many maps available from cities indeveloping countries describing urban growthand change in land use over long time. Figure8 illustrates the development of urbanisedsettlements of the City of Dar Es Salaam during1945 to 1998. Figure 9 shows the developmentof urban growth of the City of Cairo but covers

only a short time period of 1968 to 2000. Inboth examples we find the typical pattern ofgrowth along traditional radial arteries in earlyyears, and a more disperse development betweenthese main roads in later years, supported byincreasing private passenger car use.

e easiest explanation for geographical growthis population growth caused by natural param-eters and by migration – but this is only part ofthe reason, because in most cases urban areasgrow by a faster rate than the population. Driv-

ing forces also include life-style parameters andeconomic requirements. ese cannot be dis-cussed here in detail, but the transport aspectsof the urban growth form shall be investigated.

While development along main roads canefficiently be served by large buses, dispersesettlements depend on mini-buses as well as on

walking and cycling. Increasing travel timesfor commuters working within the traditionalcity areas – for example in the informal sectoras vendors – impose serious burdens, especially

on the poor. Disperse development will in thelonger term create demand for automobile own-

ership and use, thus initiating a vicious cycleof traffic increase, congestion, road networkextensions, and environmental degradation.Comparisons between the historic development

of European and North American cities withcities in the developing regions of Asia, Latin America and Africa is useful with respect toactual policy-making in developing countries.

“Disperse development will in

the longer term create demand

for automobile ownership and

use, thus initiating a vicious cycle

of traffic increase, congestion,

road network extensions, and

environmental degradation.”

e rapid growth of cities and the rapid motori-sation in developing countries confront plannersand policy-makers with similar challenges asalready occurred in highly motorised societies.But while the basic process of extending urbanarea and transcending traditional municipalboundaries may be the same in industrialised

and in developing countries, the speed and thespatial structures differ. Sprawl development hasnot yet become entrenched in developing coun-tries, because population pressure and economicconditions still result in dense growth ring andhigh density satellite cities, still allowing trans-port services to be provided efficiently.

It will be important for the public budgets tomaintain dense structures in the growth dynam-ics, and to avoid sprawl in future development.

Also aside from the transport and environ-

mental problems, costs of low-density, dispersedevelopment in general would impose severeburdens on developing cities. is includes costsof infrastructure like water supply, wastewatertreatment, and electricity supply, and also healthcare, education facilities, and so on.

Administrative structures often have not devel-oped in line with the geographical expansionof urban areas. ere are different ways to cope

with the situation: One strategy is that mu-nicipalities extend their administrative borders

integrating those urbanised and suburbanisedareas which functionally belong together. ere

http://www.geog.uu.nl/fg/UrbanGrowthhttp://www.geog.uu.nl/fg/UrbanGrowth

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

20/48

16


Fig. 8

Urban growth beyond traditional municipality

borders (Dar Es Salaam).Research data supplied by John Briggs, University of Glasgow and Davis

Mwamfupe, University of Dar es Salaam. Car tography by Mike Shand,

University of Glasgow

is the example of the City of Shanghai that inits first Master Plan in 1953 extended the urbanarea from 140 km2 to 600 km2, and since thenhas subsequently extended the municipalityarea to 6,340 km2. (Chinese municipalities ingeneral also include rural areas.)

Another formal strategy is the establishment

of regional administrative entities above themunicipality level to ensure coordinated policy

and planning. e balance of responsibilitiesbetween such bodies and the traditional mu-nicipalities is crucial for efficient management ofproblems.

Options for shaping urban growth in a sustain-able manner – both within cities and beyondtraditional municipality borders - will be dis-

cussed in Section 9.

roblems of sprawl

he main problems of

prawl-development are:

High average trip distances

for commuters,

high dependency on

private passenger cars,

noise pollution, traffic

accidents

high level of transport-

related air pollution

congestion on main

arteries,

high transport energy

consumption,

poor market shares of

transit due to economicallyunfavourable settlement

structures,

dangerous conditions for

bicyclists and pedestrians,

long trip lengths for

pedestrians due to multiple

barriers.

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

21/48

17


Fig. 9

Urban growthbeyond traditionalmunicipality borders

(Cairo).Metge, 2000, http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/transport/utsr.nsf

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

22/48

18


6. Trip generation & mode choice

related to land use parameters

6.1 Basic principles

Areal extent, density and variety of locations,and level of activities determine trip generation

within an area. Transport mode choice dependson the attractiveness of the area’s infrastructureregarding car use, public transport and non-mo-torised traffic. In mathematical models calculat-ing the transport demand resulting from tripgeneration, the geographical distances betweenlocations are expressed in terms of resistancefunctions, comprising mainly of price and traveltime. e larger the number of persons living,

working and shopping at one location, the moreconcentrated is the flow of travelers betweenthese locations. Small and geographicallyscattered locations, on the other hand, lead tosmall and scattered demand flows. e formula(Figure 10) given below is based upon theexperience that trip numbers are linearly relatedto size of the location and inversely related withsecond order travel resistance (gravity model).

Shorter distances between locations increasetravel demand between those locations, givenconstant travel speed. But it also should be keptin mind that travel speed improvements gener-

ate more trips between locations (origins anddestinations). Increase of travel speed in onemode changes travellers̀ preferences towardsthis mode. In other words: More roads for carsincrease car traffic volumes, because they createcompetitive advantages for road traffic. Sincein most developing countries social cost of cartraffic are externalised, travelers’ decision tochoose a car instead of public transport can beinterpreted as misallocation of resources.

e aggregated demand in car traffic not only

causes problems like congestion and air pollution,but creates a feedback into the spatial structures.

Changes in the transport system cause changesin spatial structure in several respects: Firstly,space requirement for one mode reduces avail-able space for others and imposes barriers totheir use. More and broader roads reduce acces-sibility of destinations by foot and bicycle. Onthe other hand, bus lanes reduce space for othermotor vehicles, thus discouraging car use. Sec-ondly, better conditions for faster modes initiate

spatial re-orientation of citizens and commercialstakeholders, leading to increased trip distances.Other shopping facilities can be reached withinthe time available, and on the other hand devel-opers will choose locations for their investmentsaccording to the changed accessibility structure.Transit-oriented urban development will lead tocharacteristic forms of urban growth, car-ori-ented development to others. ese effects willbe dealt with later.

6.2 Land use and travel demand inurban areas

In real-world cities, functional relationshipbetween locations will be very specific, becausethese carry out different urban functions. Evalu-ation of these functions is a first step to identify-ing travel needs and to optimising both thechoice of locations and the travel needs. Figure11 illustrates functional relations between vari-ous urban locations, leading to travel demand.

Trip generation patterns and modal choicein cities within developing regions differ

Fig. 10

Trip generation based

on a gravity model.Braendli, 2001

rip generation based on

gravity model

ccording to a gravity model

uch as Figure 10 below, the

ansport volume increases

hen:

the benefit of change

of place, in the sense

of reaching a new place

but also of leaving the

present location, increases,

the total resistance

against overcoming

distances (costs, time,

inconvenience, damage)

decreases.

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

23/48

19


significantly from North American or Europeanconditions because of differences in income,trip purposes, vehicle ownership and also qual-ity of service within the various modes. Social

segregation shows up in data on income gapsbetween various parts of the cities, and locationinfluences perception of problems. While themain complaints of citizens in high-incomeareas may focus on congestion, concerns ofpeople living in poorer areas will focus onaffordability of bus tickets, not to mention sheerabsence of transport infrastructure and servicesin informal settlements at the fringe of the cities.Squatter housing, for example, is estimated tohouse up to 60 percent of the urban populationin Caracas and Dar Es Salaam, and 50 percentin Karachi (http://www.wri.org/wri/wr-96-97/ up_f3.gif).

Household surveys in major cities of developingcountries have resulted in masses of data ontravel behaviour related to income, settlementstructure, trip frequency, modal choice, andtrip distances. Because land use structures andsocial status typically correspond in cities indeveloping countries, mobility data reflectsboth sets of parameters. is complicates the

identification of variables to be used as a basisfor formulation of planning objectives andpolicy measures. Because of the broad range ofproblems, transport planners tend to separateand to simplify problems, treating parts of thesystems separately. It has become commonto separate road traffic problems from publictransport aspects, for instance. Survey results oncar trips are fed into traffic flow models; thesesupport identification of bottlenecks, finallyleading to road construction projects. Non-car

trips, on the other hand, are allocated to thepublic transport network alone. Often there isno integrated modeling, and modal shifts arenot in the focus of planners. Further deficien-cies occur with respect to short non-motorisedtrips, which are under-estimated, and typicallyneither show up in problem analysis nor in theformulation of strategies.

ese deficiencies in analysis of mobility struc-tures are of special importance for low incomehouseholds in densely populated areas, both

within the traditional urban boundaries as wellas in the informal settlement areas. is bias

in perception results in a bias in policy andplanning priorities: e car is regarded as moreimportant than is justified in relation to thereal needs of the majority of the people, andnon-motorised mobility is neglected. In publictransport, there is a bias towards longer trips onmajor arteries, under-estimating the importanceof trips within neighbourhoods, and mini-buses.

“Te general rules of land use

planning for sustainable transport– reduce the need to travel and the

trip distances, support walking,

cycling, public transport, restrict

car use – have to be adapted to

local circumstances.”

Social and spatial differences, and the separatemodeling practices make it difficult to drawgeneral conclusions for urban transport plan-

ning. It is even more difficult when it comes tothe land use and transport interaction, becauseof the close relation between social status, landuse structure and mobility. e general rulesof land use planning for sustainable transport

– reduce the need to travel and the trip distances,support walking, cycling, public transport,restrict car use – have to be adapted to localcircumstances. is includes consideration ofthe political feasibility of different measures.

It will not be possible to locate all functions

within large cities in close proximity to eachother, thus minimising travel kilometres. But

Fig. 11

Functional relationshipbetween locations.

Wuppertal Institute

http://www.wri.org/wri/wr-96-97/up_f3.gifhttp://www.wri.org/wri/wr-96-97/up_f3.gifhttp://www.wri.org/wri/wr-96-97/up_f3.gifhttp://www.wri.org/wri/wr-96-97/up_f3.gif

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

24/48

20


the locations should be structured in a way thatmajor shares of trip demand are aimed at publictransport, which in turn requires high land usedensities and – wherever possible – mixed land

use. ere are two main reasons:1. High quality public transport services con-sisting of a dense network of routes and short

waiting times at the stops can only be oper-ated economically efficiently when the ratioof customer trip kilometres to bus kilometresis high: in other words high occupancy ratesof the buses are guaranteed.

2. Mixed use of urban areas, bringing togetherhousing, working, shopping and leisure willenable part of the people to reduce trip dis-

tances, but the main benefit for public trans-port lies in the multi-directional distributionof demand: is allows high occupancy ratesin different directions over the day. If the op-posite planning strategy were to be followed,for instance housing in one sector of the city,

working in another and shopping and leisurealso concentrated apart from housing areas,average occupancy of public transport vehi-cles would vary extremely according to timeand direction, leading to inefficient and un-comfortable load factors and fleet utilisation.

7. Influence of transport on

spatial development

While the influence of spatial structures on

transport demand is dealt with in traditionaltransport master plans, the rebound effects oftransport onto spatial development have notyet been a focus of planning. e traditionalcomputer model for transport master plansstarts with the evaluation of origins and desti-nations in space, and calculates trip generation(see Section 6 above). But how is the choiceof locations for housing, businesses and otherpurposes influenced by transport parameters?Investors will consider accessibility of customers

in choosing locations for shops. Housing areas will be preferred by families looking for a house, which provide easy access to work, shopping,leisure and other activities of interest; provideda high quality living environment is available insuch locations.

Development of transport infrastructure andof transport services changes accessibility pat-terns and influences locational decisions ofprivate households and of businesses. esedecisions shape the structure of the city and

of the surrounding areas, and generate newtraffic demand patterns. ese spatial changesnormally are not taken into consideration in thecourse of traditional transport planning. Whenadditional road space is expected to alleviatecongestion in a certain corridor, the shifts inlocational preferences of private and commercialinvestors may lead to additional trips and tolarger trip distances, and may even cause moretraffic within that respective corridor.

e traffic-inducing effect of infrastructure

extensions can be interpreted as a positive feed-back system. e intermediate steps are exem-plified in Figure 12, showing a simple exampleof a small settlement at a road junction where acircular road has been added. In this example,the circular road provides a new nuclei of devel-opment, modifying investment priorities andinitiating new trip relations. While the startingpoint for constructing the circular road oftenare complaints about through-traffic the trafficload resulting from the road network extension

more and more results from trips between thecentre and the new suburban locations. As a

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

25/48

21


consequence of increased trip distances andurban traffic volumes following the geographi-

cal growth of the city, further road constructionprograms will be demanded.

Some analyses in the US have led to the argu-ment that circular roads may attract investors

that otherwise would choose locations furtherout in the countryside. is has been supported

by evidence from Houston (Bolan et al ., 1997).Even if local conditions there – with a road

network so dense and no land use ordinances

– are comparable neither to Europe nor to de-veloping countries – there may be some positive

effects of highways bundling development (seealso the case of the “edge city”, Section 9.3).

e US type of centrifugal road network designsupports sprawl (Figure 13), while circular road

investment may even cause denser developmentsin some situations.

e interaction of transport infrastructureconstruction and urban development can be

studied in numerous real-world cases in the

already highly motorised countries. Where anew high-speed motorway leads from an ag-

glomeration through rural areas (and further toa distant agglomeration), part of the private

households and commercial enterprises moveout of the agglomeration and settle along that

motorway on cheaper and easily accessible land.Under the principle of travel time constraint

(see Figure 2), the process of economic optimi-sation leads to more distant trip relations if

travel times are shortened by high-speed trans-port infrastructure. Which settlement patterns

develop now depends on transport servicesprovided and the kind of infrastructure built.

Within certain travel times (and cost) privatemotor vehicles and trucks make other locations

more easily and rapidly accessible than placesalong public transport routes. Dense road net-

works and high car ownership rates supportsprawl development while rail networks support

cluster development around train stations. Un-der low car ownership conditions, and a bus-

based public transport system, development willpreferably take place along the main arteries

well served by buses (see Figure 14). At longer

distances from the centre, development mayconcentrate like “pearls on a string”.

In any case, private households and commercialcompanies will take advantage of any betteraccess (in terms of cost of transport, bothout-of-pocket cost and other cost like comfortetc.) to certain areas following transport systemimprovements. System improvements consistof infrastructure extensions and new transport

services offered, but are also caused by vehicletechnology.

Fig. 12

Circular road andurban relocations.

Wuppertal Institute VE-265e/96

Fig. 13

Spatial effects

of various roadnetwork designs.Rodrigue, 2002

medium sized town

circular road

relocation of business, housing

Centrifugal Centripetal

second ringroad

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

26/48

22


�

e link between transport and land use has notsufficiently been reflected in classical transportplanning models, which aim at improvingtraffic conditions under existing spatial con-

figurations, not taking into account the market-driven choices of locations. Observations andcomputer modeling have given some insightsinto these mechanisms. e land use patternsevolving from certain transport planningstrategies show significant variables related toincome, population increase, economic growth,sectoral dynamics, and also land use planningschemes. Migration control policies as e.g. inChina, and land ownership regulation will leadto less disperse growth than in fully liberalisedconditions.

From an environmental perspective, a corridor-oriented or pearl-chain development is preferable,based on regional transit systems, as has beendemonstrated by computer model applicationin the case of Melbourne, Australia (Newton,1999). Several basic prototypes of urban devel-opment forms were compared (see Figure 15):

Business-as-usual city – simply an extensionof current development practices.

Compact city – increased population in theinner suburbs.

Edge city – growth in population, housingdensity and employment at selected nodes,

and increased investment in freeways linkingthese nodes.

Corridor city – growth along arteries arisingfrom the central business district, radial linksand upgraded public transport.

Fringe city – growth predominantly on theoutskirts.

Ultra city – growth in regional centres within 100 kilometres of the CBD. High-speed trains link the regional centres to thecity heart.

Under an assumed urban population growth,the corridor type of city development providedthe most favourable results in terms of vehiclemileage, energy consumption and populationexposure to air pollution.

ese findings are in line with experiences fromEuropean cities that had established develop-ment corridors based on rail in early phases ofurban growth at the end of the 19th century.

Where this type of rail infrastructure had

been established, the stations formed nuclei ofdense development, initiating a “de-centralisedcentralisation”. Nowadays, with bus transportdominating and the private automobile beingaccessible to part of the population in develop-ing countries, the corridors will become morelike bands rather than pearl chains, but thebasic positive effects, as shown by the Mel-bourne modeling, will show up. e advantagesof the corridor or pearl chain type of structureboth result from savings in travel demand and

in higher public transport shares.In order to influence spatial development inthat direction, transport planning preferencesand land use planning principles have to becoordinated. Disperse urban and regionaldevelopment is both a result of investmentpriority for roads, and weak land use planning.e relatively strong planning ordinances inEurope and Japan have prevented towns andregions from developing in the same disperse

way as in the US, where zoning ordinances were

not effectively implemented. Only in recentyears there have been some efforts in the US to

ig. 14

and developmentlong transportnfrastructure.ook & Eskilsson, 1996, quoted

Ranhagen & Trobeck, 1998

�

�

ig. 15

tructural options forrban growth.

ewton, 1999

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

27/48

23


communicate planning schemes as legitimatemeasures for regulating property rights.

Spatial development cannot simply be directedby planning schemes and infrastructure invest-

ments, but is also a consequence of fiscallyinfluenced prices of the various transportationmodes. Section 9 discusses planning andtransport investment concepts from Europe and

Japan, which have been successful in achievingenvironmentally friendly urban growth struc-tures. Both regions have high taxes on transportfuels and motor vehicles.

8. How to organise land use

In the previous sections it has been shown thatland use and transport planning should be

coordinated, due to the various interactions anddependencies between these planning fields. Inaddition to the coordination of these two fields,the coordination of different planning levelsmust be achieved.

e following section deals with legal andorganizational aspects of these different types ofcoordination. Examples are given, showing howto consider transportation aspects in land useplans.

8.1 Legal and organisational set-up

Sustainable land use is primarily a local is-sue but needs to be promoted and guided bynational and provincial strategies and resources.e aim is to ensure that development takesplace within a spatial framework.

Decisions about land use should be jointlytaken at the regional, municipality and districtlevels. According to the principle of subsidiar-ity, details of planning ought to be decided on

the lowest level possible because of the betterfamiliarity with the problems. On the otherhand, these decisions and plans have to fit intothe guidelines and the framework of spatialplanning issued at the provincial and nationallevel. Figure 16 shows the vertically structuredpyramid of levels of responsibility. From theorganisational perspective, the pyramid alsoillustrates the transfer of information top-downand bottom-up, including the practical linksbetween levels in the mapping procedures.

Lower-level maps will be based upon the framedelivered from the upper levels, and vice versa.

As different administrative and politicalstructures of responsibility can be found in thevarious developing countries, the scheme has tobe adapted to local conditions. With respect tothe links between land use and transport, closecooperation between the responsible bodiesis necessary. Growth of cities beyond theirtraditional borders may have led to the estab-lishment of metropolitan authorities between

the municipal and the provincial level. Diverselegal provisions can be found for these bodies,

Land use modelsThe process of coordinating computer mod-els for land use planning and transport (oftenalso including air pollution models) at variouslevels and scales is known as "nesting".

Various decision support systems and com-puter modelling applications exist to assistplanners to predict the impact of transportstrategies and make recommendations based

on those predictions.More complex land use models have beendeveloped to model a larger range of factorsand relationships that affect land develop-ment. These models may contain both atransportation and a land use modeling com-ponent, or they may consist of a land usemodel that interfaces with an existing region-al travel demand model. They typically coveran entire metropolitan region and consist ofa zonal structure, similar to travel demandmodels. Consistent with regional forecastsof population and employment, they allocatedevelopment to each zone based on trans-port accessibility, land prices, available landby development type, and/or other parame-ters. The models are typically calibrated usinghistorical data on land development, prices,transport accessibility, and other factors.

Examples include DRAM/EMPAL (the mostwidely used US model); UrbanSim ( http:// www.urbansim.org ); TRANUS ( http:// www.modelistica.com/modelistica.html );MEPLAN ( http://www.meap. co.uk/meap/ ME&P.htm ); and Smart Places ( http://www.smartplaces.com ).

Adapted fr om US EPA, Modelli ng and Fore casting Me thods,

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/modlmeth.pdf

http://www.urbansim.org/http://www.urbansim.org/http://www.modelistica.com/modelistica.htmlhttp://www.modelistica.com/modelistica.htmlhttp://www.meap.%20co.uk/meap/ME&P.htmhttp://www.meap.%20co.uk/meap/ME&P.htmhttp://www.smartplaces.com/http://www.smartplaces.com/http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/modlmeth.pdfhttp://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/modlmeth.pdfhttp://www.smartplaces.com/http://www.smartplaces.com/http://www.meap.%20co.uk/meap/ME&P.htmhttp://www.meap.%20co.uk/meap/ME&P.htmhttp://www.modelistica.com/modelistica.htmlhttp://www.modelistica.com/modelistica.htmlhttp://www.urbansim.org/http://www.urbansim.org/

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

28/48

24


�

�

ranging from the status of informal commis-sions providing only a platform for exchange ofviews, up to complete administrative levels witha clearly defined mandate for decision-making.

Cooperation between the various hierarchicallevels should be organised according to the

principle of “counter-current”. Plans designedfor instance in urban district level have to beagreed upon by the upper level (the municipal-ity) before implementation; permission has to begranted from the upper to the lower level if theformal requirements are met. e same happens

with land use planning on municipal level towards the regional planning authorities, and viceversa. When the municipal urban developmentplan fits into the regional development scheme,

ig. 16

Vertical integrationf different planningevels.uppertal Institute

permission has to be granted by the regionalbody. Again, for regional planning and deci-sion-making, guidance will be given by spatialplanning from the provincial level, and so on.

Planning at the state or provincial level will forinstance be concretised as a “Provincial Devel-opment Plan”, regulating functions of the citiesand rural land uses for agriculture, protectedareas for national habitats, inter-urban transportinfrastructures, and other sectoral issues. eplans may be drafted in a scale of 1 to 50,000or even larger.

Regional planning may be concretised in a“Regional Development Plan” providing moredetails of land use drafted on a scale of 1 to

25,000. Large cities with surroundings areasforming extended urbanised (metropolitan)areas will be dealt with on that scale, requiring

joint planning activities by the megacity pri-mate local government and smaller surroundingmunicipalities.

At the municipal level, urban developmentplanning may be concretised in maps of thescale of 1 to 10,000, with differentiation ofurban areas for housing, offices, and productionfacilities. On this level, land use will not yet beconcretised down to single sites of propertiesexcept for very large developments. e land useprovisions on the municipal level will define themain functions of the respective areas – hous-ing (either alone or in mixture with shoppingand services), production facilities (classifiedaccording to impact on the neighbourhood andon natural environment), urban green spaces(parks, riversides), and transport infrastructure.e planned population density in housing areasmay be defined on that level, too, and the rela-

tive share of land area to be covered by buildings.Density parameters such as Floor Area Ratio orFloor Space Index will already be decided uponhere, or at the plot level (see below).

Figure 17 shows the principle of overlayingvarious land uses in urban planning. Accordingto the functions allocated to the areas, transportand other infrastructures have to be decidedupon, to avoid frictions, bottlenecks and associ-ated economic losses.

Going down the scale of planning, furtherdetails of development will be concretised on

ig. 17

Concept of a landse planning system:

Overlay of land uses.ori, 2000

8/9/2019 2A-LUP-EN

29/48

25


the level of urban districts, or urban quarters,drafted for instance on a scale of 1 to 1,000 or 1to 500. For each site or property (plot) the kindof land use allowed and the density of uses will

be clearly defined, including amongst othersthe number of storeys, floor area, the heights ofthe buildings, and its position on the respectivesites.

It of course will depend upon ownership andstatus of the developing entity if decisions

2a-lup-en

Documents