The upper limit is less obvious . The relationship between mobility , accessibility and activity participation demarceert does not directly an upper limit . At the same time it can be seen that the marginal benefits of additional mobility or accessibility decrease as the initial level of mobility and accessibility increase. The additional contribution to the activities participation will become increasingly smaller. Earlier citizens , will be at a further increase in the accessibility , make different choices , serving or types of activity , without a substantial increase in the level of activity participation. In such an accessibility level of additional investment is required under the social ambition to guarantee . Participate fully in society This is , in other words, the upper limit : government intervention is no longer necessary . This does not mean that additional investments are excluded . Above this level , by definition, As citizens attach great importance to accessibility level above the reasonable level , they must be given the space to realize that self without it coming social agents involved. The infrastructure must be self-financing in other words. The upper limit also allows for additional public investment where it would be , such as improving the economy and protect the environment . Desirable on other grounds There is , however, no mobility policy , but of economic or environmental interventions in the transport system as a policy tool . Mobility policy itself should focus on the requirement for activity participation by securing the lower limit and avoiding ' excessive ' public investment where the availability of a sufficient level . No wipes for bleeding In practice this would mean that we no longer guided by the length of the files. The fact that motorists every day to queue just proves that the transport system is of sufficient quality to make . Possible participation activities The real problem is in the latent demand for travel. There where people do not make movements not meet the mobility system and that is where interventions are therefore in place . So late in Rotterdam study shows that low-skilled job seekers can find because there is no public transport to industrial estates on the highway a job. Precisely those missing links would be achieved . And if we do smart, with a high quality service , it can also take people out of the car so that the files may be slightly shorter . But those are just additional benefits . The core of the policy is to ensure the conditions for participation activities for everyone . A mobility policy with justice as a framework composed not of wipes for bleeding , such as volunteers or near transport vans . It actually means a radical change in priorities, the bulk of the funds are used to set the lower limit. Safely Concretely means that a substantial shift in investment in asphalt , to investments in high quality regional public transport . As a bus per hour not put us anywhere , priorities must be set . Who have to go to the areas where many people live who depend on public transport and where maximum benefits can be generated in terms of increase in activity participation. That means more high frequency connections to and from areas south of Rotterdam , where many low- income groups live, an occasional bus to every rural core. Also, a justice policy will effectively have to deal . With the resources available after all Setting priorities does require adopting the proposed upper and lower fixed. That obviously will not be easy. There is little or no systematic research on the relationship between accessibility and activity participation. Given the variety in the intensity of activity participation among individuals , it will moreover not be easy to make connections between the two variables . Direct relationship Nevertheless, it can be expected that a systematic analysis , for example based on the Mobility Research Netherlands combined with bereikbaarheidskaart.nl , indeed a good indication can bring to both limits .