Impact of Transport and Land Use Patterns on Urban Form - Coursework Example

IMPACT OF TRANSPORT AND LAND USE PATTERNS ON URBAN FORM Introduction Collective forms of transport have contributed to the spatial and social evolution of towns and cities in various countries since the mid-nineteenth century. Transport is an important factor in urban development. The dimensions of urban transport include the models supported by professional planners, transport managers and the political classes. The circulation of traffic in cities, the technological provisions necessary for its functioning, the institutions, and the processes that promote its operations are significant elements of urban transport planning (Divall & Bond, 2003). Thesis Statement: Essay Option 1 will be discussed in this paper: The role of transport and land use patterns in shaping the city. What planning implications for transport and development arise from the analysis and why. Discussion The Role of Transport and Land Use Patterns in Shaping the City To determine the role of transport and land use patterns on urban form, it is essential to take into account transport planning objectives, the inter-relationships between transport planning, land use and urban development, and the required policy options. Transport Planning Objectives Sustainable Accessibility: The planning system is required to be strong with planners needing to gain new skills in order to achieve crucial objectives. The “Network City” planning strategy supports sustainable accessibility. The goal is to re-orient the existing urban structure by focusing development at places with high accessibility in order to support an effective public and private transport system. The implementation phase requires changes to planning practices in the areas of: mutually supportive public transport planning and development (Curtis, 2008). Similarly, there is a need for road network planning and road design to place land use and transport integration as the main objective rather than traffic efficiency; and to implement development according to planned population and employment targets. A new participatory approach that is implemented in stages is required (Curtis, 2008). Patronage of Public Transport: One of the main objectives as well as a high agenda challenge in both developed and developing countries in the area of transport planning is to promote the patronage of public transport. On the other hand, there is a greater preference for privately owned cars since wealth profile makes the car a more affordable means of transport and also confers status and imagery of success. According to Hensher (2007), some countries have begun to successfully reverse the decline in market share for public transport mainly through infrastructure-based investment in bus systems known as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). In contrast to other mass transit such as light and heavy rail which are more expensive to manage, the popularity of BRT is increasing throughout the world, notably in Europe, South America and Asia. In a BRT system, the buses move along dedicated infrastructure, over a wider network. Bus based transit can be further improved by “adding more buses, adjusting fare schedules, improving information systems, and integrating ticketing” (Hensher, 2007: 99). Interrelationship Between Transport Planning, Land Use and Urban Development Land use planning is considered to be effective in influencing travel patterns. The concept of land use transport integration directs how urban form can be adapted to reduce unsustainable travel. While consensus on the ideal urban form is absent, some forms are considered more sustainable than typical development patterns of recent years (Hickman & Banister, 2002; Williams et al, 2002). The most widely agreed solution by both researchers and theorists, composed of multiple nodes of concentrated activity connected both physically and by telecommunication is “decentralized concentration” (Filion, 2001; Newton, 2000; Srinivasan, 2002). According to Curtis (2008), decentralized concentration accurately reflects the reality that both decentralization and concentration processes are at work in the city. Both individual travel patterns and the activities of business are now more complex and diverse, having a much wider spatial reach. A spatial planning strategy must cater for this by designing a land use and transport network with the capability of providing accessibility at all spatial scales in a sustainable way. Changes are required to the earlier traditional deductive approach to transport planning based on data collection, defining goals and objectives, and forecasting future demands (Banister, 2002) which treats land use as a given. Taking sustainability into account, urban transport planning cannot be treated separately from land use, the environment and urban development (European Conference of Ministers of Transport, 2001, cited in Geerlings & Stead, 2003). Researchers who studied the impacts of transport on sustainability based on integrated transatlantic evidence, found that transport plays a complex and “intricate role in any quest for global sustainable development” (Himanen et al, 2004: 692). Transport planning in favour of increased establishment of Bus Rapid Transit in a stage-wise implementation is considered to be a priority requirement. The advantages of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) indicate that it is more effective in transforming cities into more livable and human-friendly environments. BRT delivers a high quality mass transit system even within the small budgets of municipalities in low income cities. BRT has thus proved that effective transit need not be costly or high technology, but only requires the political will to make it happen (Hensher, 2007). In Brisbane, the state capital of Queensland, the 16 kilometre state-of-the-art south east busway opened in 2000, and is an example of a busway system that has exceeded expectations in patronage. In the first six months of operation, the number of passengers grew by 40%, resulting in a daily average of 58,000. There has been an 88% increase in patronage over the first 3.5 years. It is reported that 375,000 private vehicle trips have been converted to public transport (Hensher, 2007). A review of The United States BRT revealed similar results (Federal Transit Administration, 2004). Policy Options for Application to Transportation Issues A central concern for policy makers is the sustainable development of transportation, for reducing adverse environmental impacts. Previously, environmental concerns in transport have mainly been concerned with local factors such as noise, visual intrusion (Banister & Button, 1993), community static severance where the road becomes a barrier to the residential area, and a dynamic severance to pedestrians, caused by the flow of vehicles on the roads (Guo & Black, 2008). Recent concerns over pollution-induced diseases, global warming and acid rain have increased the significance of environmental degradation. Transportation policy making is carried out taking into account: overall trends in demand for travel, the potential of alternatives to travel, the encouragement of less intrusive patterns of travel, the means of reducing the environmental impact of vehicles, and the means of achieving environmentally enhanced design of infrastructure (Banister & Button, 1993). The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP, 1994) considered several options based on environmental problems caused by transport in the Environmental Policy. These are: letting congestion find its own level, predicting the problem and providing accordingly, greening the way residents live, collective action, selling road space, and relying on technology. Other policy changes relate to technology to reduce the requirement for resources and to create less emissions. New fuels such as natural gas, higher quality petrol and diesel, and pre-heated catalytic converters, and low emission vehicles are endorsed. Pricing underscores the real costs of using the car, but substantial increases in the costs will be necessary to make people switch to greener modes of transport, to reassess the necessity of making a trip, or travel to a closer local destination. These methods will help to achieve greenhouse gas stabilization targets (Banister, 2002). Planning Implications that Arise from the Analysis Implementation of the “Network City” has been endorsed, since it is composed of the key principles for land use transport integration for more sustainable accessibility. The framework for successful implementation, theoretically, is a strong system of regional planning consisting of a state agency structure organised around land use transport integration; “a planning strategy produced and supported by the regional community” (Curtis, 2008: 110). In reality, however, there are significant challenges to be overcome. Achieving sustainable accessibility requires new planning tools and methods, new stakeholder relationships, and these demand new skills of planners. Implementing the Network City demands changes to existing planning practices, from developing at the urban fringe to restructuring the existing urban area, which is much more complex. Strong leadership and a proactive approach are required. For Perth, it has necessitated the setting of population and employment targets for locations across the region; to actively plan for mixed land use, to really integrate land use planning with the provision of public transport, and to reconsider road function and design against new objectives. However, though the creation of the planning and infrastructure portfolio was deemed necessary to deliver land use transport integration, counterproductive outcomes such as uncertainty for staff and the elimination of expertise should anticipated and avoided. Overcoming ingrained professional cultures and practices, the government is willing to engage in the new approaches required. The Network City created by collaboration of the regional community is expected to solve the problem of implementation at the local level (Curtis, 2008). Public attitude to the car must change, if a sustainable transport policy is to become a reality. Walking and bicycling are promoted, to enhance health and well-being and to reduce pollution on the roads (Allan, 2001; McClintock & Cleary, 1996). Further, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as public transport has several advantages such as service speed and reliability, greater patronage, lower costs, high capacity, operational flexibility, and suitability for implementation in stages. Another crucial characteristic of BRT is land use change. That is, BRT can catalyse the development or redevelopment of compact, pedestrian and transit-friendly land uses, when supported by complementary land use and zoning policies (Hensher, 2007). Transport sustainability can be practically applied by balancing the negative effects of the transport system, such as energy use, pollution and emissions, with the positive aspects, such as a high level of accessibility for individuals and organisations (Bertolini, 2005). Rather than emphasizing increase in personal mobility, there should be an emphasis on accessibility, states Whitelegg (1997). Integration of transport and land use planning policy to reduce the need to travel by innovative initiatives, is called for. Towards this outcome, it would be necessary to create mixed use development in close proximity to public transport and the improvement of the urban environment to encourage walking and cycling (Banister, 1997; RCEP, 1994). The transport networks of a city or town help to physically connect the different constituent areas into a whole, by bringing them into a closer relationship with each other. This helps to create a localized urban community identity. This is a paradoxical characteristic because a transport network system that enables rapid, smooth movement between cities has the potential to erode the sense of individual identities. “By permitting a greater degree of internal segregation by class and wealth, it may contribute to the development of divisive internal tensions” (Divall & Bond, 2003: 252) that oppose any unifying sense of overall identity. However, asense of local identity and civic pride is not affected adversely by increased facility for movement. Conclusion This paper has investigated the role of transport and land use patterns in shaping urban areas particularly in Australia. The transport planning objectives, the inter-relationships between transport planning, land use and urban development, and the various policy options that can be applied to transportation issues were taken into consideration in the analysis. The planning implications for transport and development that arise from the analysis, have been determined. It was found that radical policy changes were required to make private transport less environmentally damaging, and public transport such as bus rapid transport (BRT) more appealing. The development of network cities by restructuring the existing urban area, without expanding the city’s suburbs would help to increase accessibility and reduce the distances to be travelled for various purposes. An integrated and multi-dimensional transport decision- making process is crucial for ensuring successful outcomes to the implementation of transport policies. Further, a sense of community is likely to be enhanced as a result of these integrated strategies for optimally shaping the city by transforming transportation and land use. ------------------------------------------------ References Allan, A. (2001). Walking as a local transport modal choice in Adelaide. Australia: Walking the 21st Century. 20th to 22nd February, 2001. Perth, W. Australia. Retrieved on 3rd April, 2009 from: http://www.dpi.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/walking_21centconf01bpaper_allan.pdf Banister, D. (2002). Transport planning. 2nd Edition. London: E & FN Spon Press. Banister, D. (1997). Reducing the need to travel. Environment and Planning. B: Planning and Design. 24: 437-449. Banister, D. & Button, K. (Eds.). (1993). Transport, the environment and sustainable development. The United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis. Bertolini, L. (2005). Sustainable urban mobility, an evolutionary approach. European Spatial Research Policy, 1: 109-126. Curtis, C. (2008). Planning for sustainable accessibility: The implementation challenge. Transport Policy, 15: 104-112. Divall, C. & Bond, W. (2003). Suburbanizing the masses: public transport and urban development in historical perspective. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Federal Transit Administration. (2004). Characteristics of bus rapid transit for decision making. FTA-VA-26-7222-2004.1. US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Retrieved on 2nd April, 2009 from: http://www.nbrti.org/media/documents/Characteristics%20of%20Bus%20Rapid%20Transit%20for%20Decision-Making.pdf Filion, P. (2001). Suburban mixed-use centres and urban dispersion: what difference do they make? Environment and Planning. A 33: 141-160. Geerlings, H. & Stead, D. (2003). The integration of land use planning, transport and environment in European policy and research. Transport Policy, 10: 187-196. Guo, X. & Black, J. (2008). Traffic flow causing severance on Urban Street. American Society for Civil Engineers Publications. Retrieved on 2nd April, 2009 from: http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0002223 Hensher, D.A. (2007). Sustainable public transport systems: Moving towards a value for money and network-based approach and away from blind commitments. Transport Policy, 14: 98-102. Hickman, R. & Banister, D. (2002). Reducing travel by design: what happens over time? In: Proceedings of the 5th Symposium of the International Urban Planning and Environment Association Conference, Oxford. Himanen, V., Lee-Gosselin, M. & Perrels, A. (2004). Impacts of transport on sustainability: towards an integrated transatlantic evidence base. Transport Reviews, 24 (6): 691-705. McClintock, H. & Cleary, J. (1996). Cycle facilities and cyclists’ safety. Transport Policy, 3 (1/2): 61-77. Newton, P. (2000). Urban form and environmental performance. In: K. Williams, E. Burton & M. Jenks (Eds.). Achieving sustainable urban form. London: E & FN Spon. RCEP (Royal Commission on Environment Pollution). (1994). Eighteenth Report: Transport and the Environment. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. Srinivasan, S. (2002). Quantifying spatial characteristics of cities. Urban Studies, 39 (11): 2005-2028. Whitelegg, J. (1997). Critical mass: Transport, environment and society in the twenty- first century. London: Pluto Press. Williams, K., Burton, E. & Jenks, M. (2000). Achieving sustainable urban form. London: E & FN Spon. Read More