Robin Hickman, Catherine Seaborn, Peter Headicar,

David Banister and Corinne Swain consider the crucial

role of spatial planning in reducing the demand for trave

Banister, D

Headicar, P

Hickman, R

Seaborn, C

Swain, C

Hickman, Robin

Seaborn, Catherine

Headicar, Peter

Banister, David

Swain, Corinne

Oxford University Research Archive

Spatial planning for sustainable transport?

UCL Discovery

Town & Country Planning February 2010 77socio-economic characteristics (such as income,household structure, car availability), attitudinalcharacteristics (the disposition of people toparticular modes of travel and locations for living and working), transport infrastructure (both‘hard’ and ‘soft’) and trip purpose (see Fig. 1 below).The role of planning in helping to enable and Urban structure and mobility appear to beinextricably linked, and their effective ‘integration’has been the subject of much debate over the last30 years.1 The location of all activities – for examplehomes and workplaces and other activities –provides the ‘physical rationale’ for travel. Otherfactors contributing to the demand for travel includespatial planningfor sustainabletravel?Robin Hickman, Catherine Seaborn, Peter Headicar,David Banister and Corinne Swain consider the crucial role of spatial planning in reducing the demand for travelAboveFig. 1  Urban structure as an enabler of sustainable travelUrban structure characteristicsl Settlement sizel Strategic development locationl Densityl Jobs-housing balancel Accessibility of key facilitiesl Development site locationl Mix of usesl Neighbourhood design/street layoutSocio-economic characteristicsAdditional and cultural characteristicsPrice of travel, trading mechanismsJourney purposeTransport and infrastructure provisionl Public transportl Walk and cyclel Highwayl Travel demand managementl Parkingl Energy consumption and CO2emissionsl Traffic volumel Journey distance/trips/type/modesharel Occupancyl Vehicle efficiencyTravel behavioureven achieve sustainable travel has beenunderestimated.A recent study by the authors for the Commissionfor Integrated Transport (CfIT) has considered therelationship between urban structure and travel.2The study has illustrated the important role thatspatial planning can play in enabling greatersustainability in travel patterns. It pulls togethermuch of the earlier research on this topic, assessessome of the current data trends and the level ofpractitioner ‘engagement’, and makes the case thatthe strategic location and form of development iscritical to the trips made, the modes used and thedistances travelled.There are, of course, multiple objectives in thedesign of development, including those of urbandesign, economic development and wider socialdimensions. However, this work considers the issuesfrom the transport perspective. The cumulativeeffect of land use decisions over recent decadeshas had a profound effect on travel patterns, andwill continue to do so in the future. As an example,we can see the impact of settlement size on traveldistance – the smaller settlement size cohorts andrural areas are associated with much higher averagedistance travelled per individual (see Fig. 2 above).Principles for practitionersSo what can practitioners do? The study develops11 key themes for using spatial planning as an‘enabler’ of sustainable travel. These are:l Theme 1 – Settlement size: Larger settlementsprovide a greater mix of employment, shops andspecialised services. There is greater likelihood ofresidents finding jobs and utilising facilities, or ofservices drawing their employees and customersfrom within the same urban area, leading to thepossibility of greater ‘self-containment’. This tends78   Town & Country Planning February 2010AboveFig. 2  Settlement size and travel – settlement size greatly affects average distance travelledSource: National Travel Survey, 2002-06‘The location of all activities –for example homes andworkplaces and other activities– provides the ‘physicalrationale’ for travel’10,0009,0008,0007,0006,0005,0004,0003,0002,0001,0000CardriverBus Train Walk Cycle OtherArea typeInner LondonOuter London urban areaGlasgow urban areaWest Midlands urban areaGrtr Manchester urban areaWest Yorkshire urban areaLiverpool urban areaTyneside urban areaUrban area >250kUrban area 100k-250kUrban area 50k-100kUrban area 25k-50kUrban area 10k-25kUrban area 3k-10kRural areaAnnual distance travelled perindividual,milesCarpassengerTown & Country Planning February 2010 79to lessen average trip lengths and in particularreduces the need for inter-urban travel, which atpresent is heavily car based. All other things beingequal, the expansion of larger settlements (with aminimum population of 25,000) is generallypreferable to ‘leapfrogging’ development tosmaller, dispersed towns or rural areas.l Theme 2 – Strategic development location:Areas for major new development (residential,employment, leisure and retail) within regions,including national Growth Areas and at GrowthPoints, are usually selected according to a rangeof criteria. Such criteria should include the likelytraffic generation potential of different locations.The aim should be to locate development wheretravel by car is likely to be low, in terms of triplength, distribution and mode share, and wherethe use of non-car modes can be promoted,usually in locations where good public transportaccessibility is available (see Fig. 3 above). This ispreferable to ‘spreading’ development across anumber of urban areas.l Theme 3 – Strategic transport network: Toreduce the growth in medium-and longer-distancecar-based travel generated between settlements,the efficiency and reliability of the existing publictransport network (rail and bus) should beimproved. This is best integrated with the existingand planned development pattern, resulting in thesupport of public transport and discouragement ofthe use of the strategic highway network (seeFig. 4 overleaf).l Theme 4 – Density: Raising the density ofdevelopment, particularly around public transportnodes, can also help achieve sustainable travel.There is major scope in town centres and alsomany suburban areas. This again contributes togreater scope for viable and attractive publictransport services, and reduced car use in termsof both mode share and distance travelled. Thereis a lengthy and continuing debate overappropriate density levels. Planning PolicyStatement 3 (PPS3): Housing3 advises a ‘workingminimum of 30 dwellings per hectare’. Muchhigher densities can be achieved in many areas,up to 50-100 dwellings per hectare (DPH), andeven 100-200 DPH plus around important publictransport interchanges. Flexible density standardsAboveFig. 3  Strategic development location – development location choice can differentiate between urban areas according to traffic generation potentialInter-urban railRail stationMotorwaySecondary vehicular routeExisting urban areaPotential development siteUrban areaUrban extensionSmall settlement with good public transportFree-standing new settlement with good public transport accessSmall settlement remote from railFree-standing new settlement  remote from transport infrastructureFree-standing new settlement with good strategic highway accesscan be used according to each location, butminimum thresholds should be set at higherrather than lower levels.l Theme 5 – Jobs-housing balance: Localemployment opportunities close to residentialdevelopments will encourage the reduction ofaggregate commuting distance. A qualitativematch of skills and employment is required, aswell as quantitative balance. Like most of theurban structure variables, jobs-housing balance isa ‘necessary but not sufficient’ condition forreducing travel distances. Jobs-housing balancecan be achieved at different scales – at regional,travel-to-work, and urban area levels. Existingcommuting patterns, planned residential andemployment locations, and workforcecharacteristics should all be examined to ensurethat there are limited mismatches which mayencourage long commuting distances.l Theme 6 – Accessibility to key facilities: Keyfacilities (homes, workplaces and other activities)should be located where there are high levels ofaccessibility by public transport, as well as by car.Accessibility planning is an important tool here.Priority needs to be given to established centresbefore considering other locations on the publictransport network which offer similar levels of80   Town & Country Planning February 2010accessibility. Developments outside establishedcentres need to include a mixed-use element tofacilitate multi-purpose trips, travel demandmanagement measures, and controlled parkingon-site to complement other parking restrictionsin the vicinity.l Theme 7 – Development site location: Thisincludes the selection of sites for new housing orother developments, and can often be associatedwith transport interventions, helping to makeviable new or enhanced transport facilities or toremedy existing traffic or environmentalproblems. Sites for development can be assessedaccording to accessibility by public transport,accessibility by car and accessibility to/ fromemployment and other key facilities. Examples forlarger towns include incorporating network links inthe layout of development to allow existing urbanbus services to be utilised and enhanced. Largerextensions may justify a dedicated bus, bus rapidtransit or light rail service along a radial corridorwith priority traffic measures. For small towns,development should be focused on radialcorridors in order to utilise and support inter-urbanbus services that run along them. The selectiverelease of land can then be made at the edge oflarger settlements, and in public transportAboveFig. 4  Strategic transport network – radial and tangential multi-modal corridors linking the regional centre, local centres and regeneration or development areasMulti-modal corridorRegional centreLocal centresCongestion Charge zoneRegeneration areaTown & Country Planning February 2010 81corridors, taking into account the relativeaccessibility by public transport.l Theme 8 – Mixed use: This may be specifiedwithin a masterplan for a development area orwithin the brief for a particular development site.Essential community facilities (for examplegrocers, local schools and banks) can be locatedwithin walking distance of all homes in aneighbourhood in order to reduce traveldistances. Complementary uses should beidentified, such as day-care facilities, fitnesscentres, bookstores and cafés, and supportshould be given to building types which facilitateco-location, so that individuals can reach moreactivities per trip.l Theme 9 – Neighbourhood design and streetlayout: This includes the scale, form and functionof buildings and open space (includingstreetscapes) and the layout of local streets – forexample as permeable ‘traditional’ grid networks.Both can have an impact on generated travelpatterns. Sustainability objectives move transportplanning at this scale beyond a focus on vehicularthroughput, to include consideration of transportroutes as ‘places’ as well as ‘links’.4l Theme 10 – Traffic demand management: Thiscovers a wide range of measures aimed atreducing car use and its adverse impacts. Theycomplement the more traditional developmentcomponents of spatial planning in promotingsustainable travel, and some of the organisationalinitiatives involve behavioural measures (or‘smarter choices’). Possible traffic demandmanagement (TDM) interventions can be listedunder three main categories:l organisational and operational;l financial; andl infrastructure.The land use component of spatial strategiescan be strengthened with the development of arigorous TDM strategy which sets out to enhancethe overall sustainability of development. The UKSustainable Travel Demonstration Towns’experience5 illustrates the type of integrated TDMstrategy that may be effective in reducing car-based travel. Such packages of interventionsshould be carried out in all urban areas and newdevelopments.l Theme 11– Parking: This is a central element toTDM, and should therefore feature as an integralpart of spatial strategies at all levels. The use ofparking is much under-utilised as a strategy toencourage less car use and improve traffic andAboveFig. 5  A greater strategic focus – the strategic locational options for development need much greater attention in terms of the propensity to generate travelExtent of attentionStrategic location?Local streetscapeCurrentFutureSpatial scaleMacroMicroenvironmental conditions in an area. Controllingparking through the restriction of spaces, timingand pricing typically complements a variety ofmeasures designed to promote the use of non-car alternatives, and it can be linked to givingpriority to low-emission vehicles. Both the amountof parking space and the form in which it isprovided (i.e. within the curtilage of privatedevelopments, in allocated or unallocated off-street spaces, and in on-street bays) haveimplications for the wider issues ofneighbourhood design and street layout.Thinking strategically‘Integrating land use and transport planning’ isoften put forward as a policy objective, but relativelylittle follows in practice, particularly at the strategiclevel – and this is the level which most affects thevolume and mode of travel. Even where the internallayout of new development is good, the linkages toneighbouring areas and further afield are almostalways poor. Too often, new development is spreadbetween towns in an area, following the historicalsettlement pattern or more recent shifts in theresidential population, rather than a close analysis oftravel generation impacts. Inter-urban, medium- andlong-distance trips are often poorly addressed byTDM strategies; but it is here that car-based tripshave increased significantly over recent years, andare to a degree unconstrained.In an era where achieving sustainable lifestyleswill become increasingly important, the spatialplanning toolkit becomes critical. Decisions madeon the location of new development have a keyimpact on the numbers of trips, the modes usedand the distances travelled. The key for practitionerswill be to act across a range of policy levers –beyond, say, density – covering the location, formand layout of development. Alongside, we candevelop traffic demand management strategies thatsupport and are integrated with the developmentvision.A key element here may be the concept of‘unnecessary mobility’, where some trips can bereduced in volume relative to others which havemore value. Much more understanding is requiredof the types of trips that can be reduced and theincentives required. The response to climate change82   Town & Country Planning February 2010needs a progressive approach, recognising theimportance of actions at the sub-regional scale (seeFig. 5), and breaking down the ‘silo mentality’ thatoften exists between different professionaldisciplines. The CfIT study output hopefully providesan easily accessible, web-based toolkit for spatialand transport planners to work with and increasetheir influence.l Dr Robin Hickman (hickmanro@halcrow.com) is anAssociate Director and Head of Transport Research at Halcrowand a Research Fellow at the Transport Studies Unit, Universityof Oxford; Catherine Seaborn is a Consultant at Halcrow;Peter Headicar is Reader in Transport Planning at OxfordBrookes University; David Banister is Professor of TransportPlanning at the Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford;and Corinne Swain a Fellow at Arup and a Commissioner atthe Commission for Integrated Transport. Robin Hickman,Catherine Seaborn, Peter Headicar and David Banister carriedout the CfIT study on Planning for Sustainable Travel, andCorinne Swain led the project steering and external referencegroups for CfIT. The authors wish to thank the CfIT for fundingthe study, Neil Williams as its Project Manager, and the widerstudy team who helped to develop the work – including othersfrom Halcrow Group and Tim Pharoah. Special thanks go tothe local authority practitioners who were interviewed duringthe study. The views expressed in this article are those of theauthors and the CfIT and do not necessarily reflect those ofthe local authorities involved.Notes1 See, for example, among many others, P.W.G. Newmanand J.R. Kenworthy: Cities and AutomobileDependence. An International Sourcebook. Gower,1989; P.W.G. Newman and J.R. Kenworthy:Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming AutomobileDependence. Island Press, Washington DC, 1999; M. Breheny: ‘The contradictions of the compact city: Areview’. In M. Breheny (Ed.): Sustainable Developmentand Urban Form. Pion, 1992, pp.138-59; R. Ewing and R. Cervero: ‘Travel and the built environment. Asynthesis’. Transportation Research Record, 2001, Vol. 1780, 87-114; and W. Bohte, K. Maat and B. vanWee: ‘Measuring attitudes in research on residentialself-selection and travel behaviour: A review of theoriesand empirical research’. Transport Reviews, 2009, Vol. 29 (3), 325-572 R. Hickman, C. Seaborn, O. Ashiru, S. Saxena, P. Headicar, D. Banister and T. Pharoah: Planning forSustainable Travel. Summary Guide; and Land Use andTransport: Settlement Patterns and the Demand forTravel. Background Technical Report. HalcrowGroup/Oxford Brookes University/Oxford University forthe Commission for Integrated Transport, 2009.www.plan4sustainabletravel.org3 Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3): Housing.Department for Communities and Local Government,Nov. 20064 P. Jones, N. Boujenko and S. Marshall: Link and Place.A Guide to Street Planning and Design. Landor, 20075 See www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/demonstrationtowns/sustainabletraveldemonstrati5772‘In an era where achievingsustainable lifestyles willbecome increasinglyimportant, the spatial planningtoolkit becomes critical’

Spatial Planning for Sustainable Transport?

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1332835/1/Hickman_TCPA_CfIT%20planning%20for%20sustainable%20travel%202010a.pdf

Spatial Planning for Sustainable Transport?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Oxford University Research Archive

UCL Discovery