URBS 310

Peak periods and particular patterns reflecting location and spatial concentration (density) of jobs, and location and spatial concentration (density) of residents

Speed of travel (by different modes) and capacity of transport infrastructure to accommodate travel

Mobility (or constraint mobility- ‘congestion’) is a frequently used measure by government agencies. Dollar value of ‘wasted time’ is often reported (but while real, does not address long/excess commuting and can lead to ineffectual government responses)

Began in the 1960s and increased in 1970s
Mobility required space leasing to use of land and waterways, and produced air and noise pollution
The promise of mobility- are people really better off and happier and more prosperous?
Consensus on ‘congestion as the enemy’ begins to break down-competing perspectives

It helps explain why mobility is popular or desirable – people don’t really want to move around fast just for the sake of moving around fast

“…the ease of reaching potential destinations”, also called ‘opportunities’ or ‘activity sites’; it depends on the number of opportunities available within a certain distance or travel time, and on mobility,

All other things equal, more mobility means more accessibility (positive correlation)

Underlying goal of transport is accessibility-mobility is a means to an end; the end, or goal, is interaction with people (work, school, social)

Transport (mobility) is valuable because it raises our accessibility to others and/or others’ accessibility to ours.

Distance that can be travelled in a specified period of time

One way of identifying the area that furthest area that can be reached, and then adding up opportunities within that area

Software can also be used to estimate opportunities available, from many small areas, in a specified amount of travel time

More complicated than measuring mobility

Person based (less common) and location-based (more common)

Number and quality of destinations that can be reached, and the cost of reaching them

One popular approach: a cumulative opportunities accessibility measure (number of destinations that can be reached within a specified time or distance)

“… evaluates the number of destinations that can be reached in a given time threshold” (Levinson et al, 2017, p. 24).
E.g. jobs as the destination, 30 minutes as the threshold.

Uses of a Cumulative Opportunity Measure
If a consistent (same isochrone/travel time contour and same types of destinations) method is used, we can compare measures for different areas

Large concentration of activities, so high accessibility (even if no car available)
If there is a concentration of activities in an area (density), it may be possible to have a high accessibility level without mobility by car.
Car always wins, but we should consider the negative side effects

Negative side-effects such as landscape paving, loss of habitat, noise, social polarization resulting in crime, death and injuries, loss of childhood freedoms, overweight, homogenization, less convivial, less democracy

Another answer: if accessibility actually declines- but how would this be possible?

Mobility requires space to move, and particularly if provided by autos, a lot more space
More mobility requires more space, and more non-renewable resources- fossil fuel and land
Providing unlimited mobility requires a lot of investment and can be destructive

Mobility increases accessibility, ceteris paribus

Accessibility also increased by remote communication (internet, phone) and by being located closer together (proximity)

Mobility is one means of increasing accessibility; proximity is another

Because mobility requires space to move, expansion of mobility can mean displacement of human activity (“proximity”)

New human habitat built around the car (“sprawl”) can require massive mobility to achieve accessibility

Retrofitting cities with freeways (and connecting roads and parking) required demolition

Avila- negative consequences of national highway infrastructure passing through US cities, particularly for people of colour and working class- wealthier and whiter communities had freeways/highways cancelled or re-routed around- inequitable

1956 federal aid highway act: to build national highway infrastructure
Gave 90% of funds to build highways to the states

Resulted in cleaving urban built environment into isolated parcels of race and class
These freeways divided people more

Sparked civic wars over freeways threat to specific neighbourhoods and communities
“Freeway revolt” during late 60s and early 70s

What happened?
White middle class or affluent communities mustered resources and connections to force concessions from the state

Freeways were built in black neighborhoods and commercial districts, mexican barrios, and chinatowns

Interstate highways sparked development of new communities

“Inequality was associated … with the … development of the U.S. highway system. During the period of urban renewal in the 1950s and 1960s, planners routed interstate highways through low‐ income and minority neighborhoods, demolishing large swaths of affordable housing and severing the social and economic fabric of already vulnerable communities”

The new mobility infrastructure made more mobility (and accessibility and prosperity) possible for many people but disadvantaged some people. This contributed to greater inequality.

Higher cost transportation burdens low income households, and this is unfair (or “regressive” rather than “progressive”

Inequity requires a value or “moral judgement” concerning whether something is fair and whether a principle is violated.

An alternative to a mobility focused approach – from three main sources
Promotion of sustainable modes
Seeking to reduce automobile use
Not to be confused with “Sustainable Mobility” approaches

Linked to concept of Sustainable Development (Sustainability)

Walking (& horse-drawn coaches)
Transit
Automobile (& rapid transit)

Have changed together
the city we see today includes elements built at different points in time
Transport technology: synonymous with modes, types that can be differentiated on the basis of common characteristics
Urban Form: comprised of buildings (development), infrastructure, and open space surrounded by buildings and infrastructure

the infrastructure consisted of paths or streets between buildings, but these paths and streets were used for many purposes

the cities which were supported by this mode were small (in population and area) and high density (persons per unit of area)

hardly any point more than 1 km from city centre: 15 minutes walk along narrow streets

High proximity, low mobility

Populations and areas very small by toads standards: with some exception they werent exceeding 50,000 people

Mobility and accessibility low but proximity high

Beginning in baroque period of european history, in 1600, gov territories (states) became larger and the city-state period flourished

size of states and economies increased- larger numbers of people owned
coaches and ‘livery’ (horses) which provided a means of travelling farther

These were private transportation- not public transportation

Late 1700s- industrial revolution
Steam-powered railroads ideal for linkining major points like cities, mines and ports- but for little significance in moving people within cities

Originated in Nantes, France- 1826
Within 30 years most large european and north american cities

Limitations
Beat walking, but not by much

More like a taxi – not “true” public tranpstoation
In use from 1826 late 1870s
Horse drawn carriages for hire

At first not on rails but later added:

1850s- Horse drawn street railways- “urban tramway”
Doubled the amount of people that could be carried and at higher speeds
Faster, smoother, less noisy, more safe, easy to get in
By private companies
“Concession”- could operate but in return had to do some things
First real public transportation – different people getting on and off at different points along a predetermined route

An improvement – more power from the horses because of less friction
1832 New York and Harlem Railway Company which put a horse drawn carriage on a track for the first time for the purposes of moving people
Carriages on rails were a big improvement but still not for the masses

Electric street railways, tramways, trmams, trolleys
First public transportation for the masses
Key technological feature/invention was the “trolley

Passengers transported along a predetermined itinerary for fares within cities.
First transport “for all”, although much of the population could still not afford the fares.

played substantial role in urban living in Europe (and North America’s larger cities). Omnibus contributed to growth of new middle-class residential areas 1.6-3.2 km from city centre

horse pulled carriages on rails.

Greatest advantage of horse pulled streetcar in comparison with omnibus was reduced friction and correspondingly more efficient use of horse power.
faster, smoother, and less noisy

New York, 1868
Problems limiting its use
noise, pollution

New york ‘el’, 1870
On the origins of the commuter railway and commuting

San Francisco, 1873

For about half a century 1890-1940, the electric streetcar/ tramway had a major shaping effect on the built environment (and use of land or “land use”) of cities

It was an improvement on all other modes up until that time – a “category killer” or the equivalent of the mobile phone

Later it was superseded by cars and rail rapid transit, but it lives on and has been revived in many cities