Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
SILVA, Structural Accessibility for Mobility Management

SILVA, Structural Accessibility for Mobility Management

Ratings: (0)|Views: 42 |Likes:
Published by ihering

More info:

Published by: ihering on Jul 01, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/14/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Structuralaccessibilityfor
 
mobilitymanagement
Cecı´lia
 
Silva*
Faculty
 
of 
 
Engineering
 
of 
 
Oporto
 
University,
 
 Research
 
Centre
 
 for 
 
Territory,
 
Transport 
 
and 
 
Environment, Rua
 
 Dr 
 
 Roberto
 
Frias,
 
4200-465
 
Oporto,
 
Portugal
Abstract
Urban
 
mobility
 
problems,
 
such
 
as
 
congestion,
 
have
 
been
 
threatening
 
the
 
quality
 
of 
 
life
 
and
 
the
 
competitiveness
 
of 
 
urban
 
areas
 
aswell
 
as
 
their
 
sustainable
 
development.
 
The
 
need
 
to
 
integrate
 
land
 
use
 
and
 
transport
 
policies
 
has
 
been
 
widely
 
recognised
 
as
 
animportant
 
approach
 
within
 
the
 
‘predict
 
and
 
prevent’
 
paradigm
 
for
 
mobility
 
management.
 
Nevertheless,
 
such
 
integration
 
is
 
seldomput
 
into
 
practice.
 
The
 
lack 
 
of 
 
design
 
support
 
tools
 
is
 
pointed
 
out
 
as
 
one
 
of 
 
the
 
reasons
 
for
 
this
 
fact.The
 
accessibility
 
concept
 
is
 
believed
 
to
 
provide
 
a
 
useful
 
framework 
 
to
 
support
 
the
 
design
 
of 
 
integrated
 
land
 
use
 
and
 
transportpolicies.
 
This
 
paper
 
hypothesises
 
that
 
measures
 
of 
 
comparative
 
accessibility
 
by
 
transport
 
mode
 
can
 
operationalise
 
the
 
accessibilityconcept
 
for
 
this
 
purpose.
 
In
 
order
 
to
 
test
 
this
 
hypothesis,
 
a
 
design
 
support
 
tool
 
was
 
developed,
 
based
 
on
 
a
 
measure
 
of 
 
comparativeaccessibility
 
 
the
 
Structural
 
Accessibility
 
Layer
 
(SAL).
 
The
 
usefulness
 
of 
 
the
 
tool,
 
and
 
thereby
 
of 
 
comparative
 
accessibility,
 
wastested.
 
First,
 
the
 
SAL
 
is
 
applied
 
to
 
a
 
case
 
study
 
 
Greater
 
Oporto
 
 
and
 
then
 
evaluated
 
through
 
expert
 
interviews.
 
The
 
case
 
studyprovides
 
insight
 
into
 
its
 
potentials
 
as
 
design
 
support
 
tool
 
for
 
integrated
 
land
 
use
 
and
 
transport
 
policies.
 
Expert
 
interviews
 
enable
 
theassessment
 
of 
 
the
 
robustness,
 
usefulness
 
and
 
applicability
 
of 
 
the
 
tool.
 
The
 
results
 
suggest
 
that
 
the
 
SAL
 
provides
 
a
 
useful
 
operationalform
 
of 
 
the
 
accessibility
 
concept
 
for
 
design
 
support.
 
This
 
research
 
concludes
 
that
 
measures
 
of 
 
structural
 
accessibility
 
seem
 
toprovide
 
a
 
useful
 
design
 
support
 
framework 
 
for
 
integrated
 
land
 
use
 
and
 
transport
 
policy,
 
shedding
 
light
 
on
 
the
 
sustainability
 
of potential
 
mobility
 
enabled
 
by
 
land
 
use
 
and
 
transport
 
conditions.
#
 
2012
 
Elsevier
 
Ltd.
 
All
 
rights
 
reserved.
Keywords:
 
Structural
 
accessibility;
 
Urban
 
policy;
 
Integrated
 
approach;
 
Design
 
support
 
tool
Contents
1.
 
Introduction
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
22.
 
Land
 
use
 
and
 
transport
 
factors
 
influencing
 
travel
 
behaviour
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
42.1.
 
Theoretical
 
evidence
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
52.2.
 
Empirical
 
evidence
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
62.2.1.
 
Evidence
 
of 
 
interaction
 
of 
 
land
 
use
 
and
 
transport
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
62.2.2.
 
Evidence
 
of 
 
the
 
combined
 
influence
 
of 
 
land
 
use
 
and
 
transport
 
on
 
mobility
 
patterns
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
72.3.
 
Synthesis:
 
Implications
 
for
 
policy
 
making
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
113.
 
Accessibility
 
measures
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
123.1.
 
Components
 
used
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
123.2.
 
Types
 
of 
 
accessibility
 
measures
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
133.2.1.
 
Discussion
 
of 
 
advantages
 
and
 
disadvantages
 
of 
 
all
 
measure
 
types.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
16
www.elsevier.com/locate/pplannProgress
 
Tel.:
 
+351
 
225081464.
E-mail
 
address:
 
ccsilva@fe.up.pt.0305-9006/$
 
 
see
 
front
 
matter
 
#
 
2012
 
Elsevier
 
Ltd.
 
All
 
rights
 
 
The
 
need
 
for
 
the
 
integration
 
of 
 
land
 
use
 
and
 
transportpolicies
 
has
 
been
 
recognised
 
by
 
several
 
authors
 
1999).Integratedland
 
use
 
and
 
transport
 
policies
 
can
 
providethenecessary
 
(albeit
 
not
 
sufficient)
 
conditions
 
forsustainablemobility
 
patterns,
 
without
 
which
 
comple-mentarypolicy
 
action
 
would
 
have
 
limited
 
to
 
no
 
effect.Thereare
 
clear
 
theoretical
 
and
 
empirical
 
evidencesofinteraction
 
between
 
land
 
use
 
and
 
transport
 
systemsando
 
their
 
combined
 
effect
 
on
 
mobility
 
patterns.
 
Inaddition,there
 
is
 
a
 
broad
 
political
 
and
 
academicrecognition
 
of 
 
the
 
need
 
to
 
integrate
 
land
 
use
 
andtransportpolicies
 
to
 
foster
 
more
 
sustainable
 
mobilitypatterns.According
 
to
 
 
planning
 
documents
 
include
 
at
 
least
 
thedesireto
 
integrate
 
land
 
use
 
and
 
transport.
 
In
 
spite
 
of thesefacts,
 
integration
 
is
 
seldom
 
put
 
into
 
practice.‘Successful
 
implementations
 
of 
 
integrated
 
planningconceptsare
 
still
 
rather
 
scarce
 
in
 
most
 
ofthe
 
EUmember
 
states’
 
1999,p.
 
9).Numerous
 
implementation
 
barriers
 
have
 
beenidentified.
 
According
 
to
 
themostrelevant
 
aspects
 
responsible
 
for
 
the
 
lack 
 
of implementationin
 
practice
 
of 
 
integrated
 
land
 
use
 
andtransportpolicies
 
are:
 
the
 
existence
 
of 
 
conflictinginterests,
 
the
 
lack 
 
of 
 
common
 
land
 
use
 
and
 
transportlanguage,
 
the
 
absence
 
of 
 
political
 
commitment
 
forintegration,
 
the
 
existence
 
of 
 
institutional
 
barriers
 
andthelack 
 
of 
 
goodsupport
 
instruments
 
 
research
 
focuses
 
on
 
one
 
of 
 
the
 
implementationbarriersfor
 
integrated
 
land
 
use
 
and
 
transport
 
policies,aimingto
 
contribute
 
to
 
the
 
translation
 
of 
 
theory
 
andrhetoricinto
 
practice.
 
The
 
implementation
 
barrieraddressed
 
is
 
the
 
lack 
 
ofdesign
 
support
 
tools.Incontrast
 
to
 
the
 
abundance
 
of 
 
analysis
 
andevaluationtools,
 
there
 
is
 
a
 
lack 
 
of 
 
tools
 
supportingthedesign
 
of 
 
integrated
 
land
 
use
 
and
 
transport
 
policies.Inaddition,
 
itis
 
generally
 
believed
 
that
 
very
 
few
 
of 
 
thedevelopedpolicy
 
design
 
support
 
tools
 
are
 
actually
 
usedinpractice.
 
Literature
 
onPlanning
 
Support
 
Systems(PSS)identifies
 
the
 
dichotomy
 
between
 
supply
 
anddemandof 
 
PSS
 
as
 
the
 
main
 
reason
 
for
 
this
 
phenomenon.Onthe
 
one
 
hand,
 
planning
 
practitioners
 
(potential
 
usersofPSS)
 
are
 
generally
 
unaware
 
of 
 
and
 
inexperienced
 
intheuse
 
of 
 
PSS,
 
not
 
recognising
 
their
 
value
 
and
 
potential(resultingin
 
low
 
intention
 
to
 
use
 
them).
 
On
 
the
 
otherhand,developers
 
of 
 
PSS
 
have
 
littleawareness
 
of demandrequirements
 
&
 
effective
 
use
 
ofPSS
 
is
 
currently
 
suffering
 
from
 
a‘rigour-relevance
 
dilemma’,
 
with
 
developers
 
mainlyconcernedwith
 
rigour
 
while
 
users
 
are
 
mainly
 
concernedwithrelevance
 
(see
 
for
 
instance,
 
 
clear
 
that
 
the
 
design
 
ofPSS
 
for
 
thedevelopmentof 
 
integrated
 
land
 
use
 
and
 
transportpolicies
 
must
 
take
 
into
 
consideration
 
this
 
discussion,overcomingthe
 
main
 
bottlenecks
 
and
 
providingtheoretically
 
rigorous
 
as
 
well
 
as
 
usable
 
instruments.Thispaper
 
proposes
 
the
 
use
 
of 
 
accessibility
 
measuresforthis
 
purpose.Severalauthors
 
such
 
as
 
 
and
 
 
believe
 
that
 
accessibilitymeasuresprovide
 
a
 
useful
 
framework 
 
for
 
the
 
design
 
of integrated
 
land
 
use
 
and
 
transport
 
policies.
 
Accessibilitymeasuresare
 
considered
 
to
 
describe
 
the
 
linkbetweentransportand
 
land
 
use
 
&
1997).
 
Inaddition,Geurs
argue
 
that
 
thesemeasuresare
 
easy
 
to
 
interpret
 
and
 
operationalise.Finally,Straatemeierand
believe
 
accessibilitymeasureshavethe
 
potentialto
 
deal
 
with
 
currentlimitationsin
 
the
 
development
 
of 
 
integrated
 
land
 
useandtransport
 
policies.
 
They
 
argue
 
that
 
accessibility
 
hasthepotential
 
to
 
address
 
the
 
need
 
for
 
a
 
common
 
languagebetweenland
 
use
 
and
 
transport,
 
for
 
alinko
 
transportplanning
 
to
 
broader
 
policy
 
concerns
 
and
 
for
 
moreemphasison
 
the
 
policy
 
design
 
phase.Althoughaccessibility
 
has
 
long
 
been
 
used
 
in
 
theacademicand
 
planningdebate
 
‘the
 
translation
 
of 
 
suchconceptsin
 
performance
 
measures
 
thatcan
 
be
 
usefullyemployedto
 
improve
 
integrationof 
 
transport
 
and
 
landuseplanmaking
 
in
 
practice
 
is
 
still
 
very
 
limited
 
&
1997)’
 
 
209–210).
 
The
 
importance
 
of 
 
searching
 
forhelpfulaccessibility
 
measures
 
for
 
policy
 
design
 
can
 
be justified
 
by
 
the
 
lack 
 
of 
 
operational
 
forms
 
of 
 
accessibilitymeasuresfor
 
planningand
 
policy
 
design
 
purposes
 
(inspiteo
 
the
 
vast
 
academic
 
research).
 
Wee(2004)argue
 
that
 
accessibility
 
is
 
oftenmisunderstood,poorlydefined
 
and
 
measured,
 
which
 
supports
 
the
 
need
 
forfurtherresearch
 
in
 
this
 
field.
 
The
 
lackof 
 
translation
 
hasbeenattributed,
 
by
 
 
to
 
the
 
lack 
 
of consensus
 
on
 
the
 
best
 
accessibility
 
measures
 
to
 
be
 
used.The
 
following
 
keywords
 
summarise,
 
two
 
distinctgroups
 
of 
 
characteristics
 
considered
 
to
 
be
 
required
 
foraccessibility
 
measures
 
by
 
a
 
number
 
of 
 
authors,
 
namelyHandy
C.
 
Silva
 
 / 
 
Progress
 
in
 
Planning
 
81
 
(2013)
 
1
49
 
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->