High speed on rail and traffic calming on road:

a new deal for urban accessibility

Pr. Yves Crozet Institute of Transport Economics (LET)

University of Lyon - France

yves.crozet@let.ish-lyon.cnrs.frwww.let.fr

French/US Workshop on the Role of Public Transport in Creating Liveable and Sustainable Communities

Contents• 1) Accessibility: the key role of high

speed modes and the relative obsolescence of car for interurban mobility

• 2) Urban mobility: low speed modes and the renewal of “accessibility”

1) Accessibility: the key role of high speed modes

– The iron law of coupling

– Microeconomic optimisation and interurban mobility

Global mobility (data points : 1960-2000)

100 000

10 000

1 000

100

100 1 000 10 000100 000

GDP / cap, US$ (2000) Source : Schafer and Victor (2000) : economic growth rates based on IP CC IS9 2a/e scenario

Accessibility

• “Accessibility at point 1 to a particular type of activity at point 2 is directly proportional to the size of the activity at point 2 and inversely proportional to a function of the distance separating the two points.

• The total accessibility at point 1 to the activity is the summation of the accessibility to each of the points around point 1” (Hansen 1959, p. 74 ff)“

• We can describe accessibility as a function of territorial structure and transport supply.

• with

• Ai = Accessibility to destinations D from point i

• Dj = Activity destinations at points j

• cij = Generalized costs (time, price…)

)( ij

jji cfDA

Accessibility and city attractiveness

Transport

Location Activities

Interurban Mobility

Time budget

Revenue

Distance

ValueofTime

Road speed

HSTPlane

CarWalking

HSTSpeed

Road traffic saturation in Europe

Interurban mobility

• There is an « iron law » of coupling

• The more you increase the GDP, the more you increase mobility

• A higher revenue leads us to look for « variety » and then to seize the opportunity of a higher and cheaper speed to increase our average distance of travel

• Farer, faster and more often for a shorter stay!

2) Urban mobility: low speed modes and the renewal of “accessibility”

– Travel time budget and speed, extensive and intensive cities

– Gravity accessibility, an other combination between density and speed

Speed and distance: the reinvestment of time gains - (Zahavi’s conjecture and urban sprawl)

Time

Space

WT

TT

VV’

« Extensive » vs « intensive » cities (2)

Average speedon road network (Km/h)

ExtensiveIntensive

Average dailydistance (Km)

Daily travel timebudget (min)

« Extensive » vs « intensive » cities (1)

Nb of cars per 100 inhabitants

3941,43

2584,29

8756,78

3157,77

2381,40

3369,89

Profil ExtensifProfil Intensif

Population (milliers)

Surface(x100 ha)

PIB urbain par pers. (x10 dollars US)

Urban GDP/per Cx10 US $

Surface(/square km)

Population(x1000)

ExtensiveIntensive

« Extensive » vs « intensive » cities (3)

5,90

92,88

56,98

27,59

65,38

38,75

Profil ExtensifProfil Intensif

Part modale des Transports Publics

Motorisation(veh./ 100 pers.)

Part modale de l'automobile (%)

Modal shareof public transport

Modal shareof car

Nb of cars per 100 inhabitants

ExtensiveIntensive

Urban mobility: new challenges

• France: some paradoxical changes in urban mobility policies

• The decreasing relevancy of Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) to define public choices

• A public preference for slow modes (tramway, bus, bikes, pedestrian streets..)

• Voluntary restrictions to car mobility (lower speed, reduced width of roads…)

• Towards a lower accessibility ? A risk for urban attractiveness?

ijcβ

jji DA

exp

« Attractive Masses »

Housing

Jobs Shops, Leisure

Generalised cost

Monetary cost + Travel Time +

parameters

Parameter

Sensitivity to Generalised cost

Economic theory of urban accessibilityHansen 1959, Koenig 1974

somme des temps élémentaires des différents modes en milieu urbain dense

0,001,002,003,004,005,006,007,008,00

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28

minutes

kilo

mètr

es

Marche à pied

vélo

« Velo'v »

bus

tramw ay

métro

Auto

Time, distance and speed in urban areas

WalkingBicycle

SSBBus

TramwayMetro

Car

Potential passenger flow in a dense area per hour for a 3.5 meters width infrastructure

MOSART and Lyon case study

• MOSART, a GIS-T tool

• Car accessibility during off peak and peak periods

• Compared accessibilities (car vs public transit): the revealed preferences of public policies

• From time gains to land use priorities

• Orthophotos

MOSART : A GIS

• Census data

• Administratives areas

• Road network

• PT network

• Shops et services

• Measuring and viewing services levels offered by different transport networks

• Identifying access inequalities to urban amenities

• Comparing transport-policy and urban-planning scenarios

• Creating Spatial accessibilities observatory

Project objectives

MOSART Version 2 : case study

MOSART Version 2 : case study

MOSART Version 2 : case study

Conclusion (2)

• Tell me what accessibility you are ready to promote, and how (mode ? speed ? reliablity? density?) and for who ?

• Tell we what accessibility you are ready not to promote, and even to reduce…

• And I’ll tell you what city you prepare for tomorrow!

j

ijji cDA βexp

Some references• Crozet y. (2009), The prospect for inter-urban travel demand, 18th

Symposium of International Transport Forum, OECD, Madrid 16-18/11/2009, 28 pages, www.internationaltransportforum.org

• Crozet y. (2009),, “Economic Development and the Role of Travel Time: the Key Concept of accessibility”, Commissioned paper for the 2009 VREF(Volvo research and education foundation) Conference on Future of UrbanTransport: Looking for an Architecture for a Sustainable Urban Transport,Gothenburg, April 20-21, 2009, 23 pages

• Hansen, W.G. (1959) ‘How accessibility shapes land-use’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25, pp. 73-76

• Johannsson, B., Klaesson, J., Olsson M. (2002) ‘Time distance and labour market integration’, Papers in Regional Science, 81-3, pp. 305-327

• Koenig, J.G. (1974) ‘Théorie économique de l'accessibilité urbaine’, Revue Economique, XXV-2, pp. 275-297

• Morris, J.M., Dumble, P.L. and Wigan, M.R. (1979), ‘Accessibility indicators for transport planning’, Transportation Research-A, 13A, pp. 91-109

• Pirie, G.H. (1979), ‘Measuring accessibility : a review and proposal’, Environment and Planning A, 11, pp. 299-312

D

prixcoût

déplacements entrezones i et j

A

O

variation de surplus

surplus initial

T2

c2d2

mimmi tvotcCg

2

1

ij

ij

c

c

ijijdcTS

T1

c1d1

• Demand Curve ?

Wilson (1970)

kikk

ijjiij cfD

cfDOT

)(

)(

k

ikki cDA exp

ijij ccf exp)(

• Accessibility (Hansen, 1959)

• Surplus change for zone i

jzones

c

c

ijiji

ij

ij

dcTS

2

1

12

1

2

lnlnexp

exp

ln iii

jijj

jijj

ii AA

O

cD

cDO

S

• Neuburger (1971)

= Koenig (1974)