How can planning for accessibility lead to more integrated transport and land-use strategies? Two examples from the Netherlands

References

• Banister, D. (2005). Unsustainable transport. London and New York: Spon.
   Google Scholar
• Bertolini, L. (2012). Integrating mobility and urban development agendas: a manifesto. disP-The Planning Review, 48(1), 16–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2012.702956
   Google Scholar
• Bertolini, L. (2017). Planning the mobile metropolis: Transport for people, places and the planet. London: Macmillan International Higher Education. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-31925-8
   Google Scholar
• Bertolini, L., Le Clercq, F., & Kapoen, L. (2005). Sustainable accessibility: a conceptual framework to integrate transport and land use plan-making. Two test-applications in the Netherlands and a reflection on the way forward. Transport Policy, 12(3), 207–220. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.01.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertolini, L., Curtis, C., & Renne, J. (2012). Station area projects in Europe and beyond: Towards transit oriented development? Built Environment, 38(1), 31–50. doi: https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.38.1.31
   Google Scholar
• Bruegmann, R. (2008). Point: Sprawl and accessibility. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 1, 5–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v1i1.30
   Google Scholar
• Duffhues, J., & Bertolini, L. (2015). From integrated aims to fragmented outcomes: Urban intensification and transportation planning in the Netherlands. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 9(3). doi: https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2015.571
   Google Scholar
• Geerlings, H., & Stead, D. (2003). The integration of land use planning, transport and environment in European policy and research. Transport Policy, 10, 187–196. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(03)00020-9
   Google Scholar
• Gemeente Rotterdam, Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Provincie Zuid-Holland and Stadsregio Rotterdam. (2009). Masterplan Rotterdam Vooruit. Rotterdam: Projectorganisatie Rotterdam Voorruit.
   Google Scholar
• Geurs, K. T., de Bok, M., & Zondag, B. (2012). Accessibility benefits of integrated land use and public transport policy plans in the Netherlands. In K. T. Geurs, K. J. Krizek, & A. Reggiani (Eds.), Accessibility analysis and transport planning challenges for Europe and North America (pp. 135–153). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Geurs, K. T., De Montis, A., & Reggiani, A. (2015). Recent advances and applications in accessibility modelling. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 49, 82–85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geurs, K. T., & Ritsema van Eck, J. R. (2001). Accessibility measures: Review and Application. Utrecht: RIVM.
   Google Scholar
• Geurs, K. T., & van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12, 127–140. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005
   Google Scholar
• Giuliano, G. (2004). Land-use impacts of transportation investments. In S. Hanson and, & G. Giuliano (Eds.), The Geography of urban transportation (pp. 237–273). New York: The Guildford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halden, D. (2002). Using accessibility measures to integrate land-use and transport policy in Edinburgh and the Lothians. Transport Policy, 9, 313–324. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(02)00017-3
   Google Scholar
• Hamers, D., Snellen, D., Breedijk, M., Hilbers, H., Nabielek, K., & Tennekes, J. (2014). Kiezen én delen. Strategieën voor een betere afstemming tussen verstedelijking en infrastructuur. Den Haag: Planbureau voor de leefomgeving. (PBL).
   Google Scholar
• Handy, S. (2002). Accessibility- vs. mobility-enhancing strategies for addressing automobile dependence in the U.S. Presented at the European conference of ministers of transport, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Handy, S. (2008). Regional transportation planning in the US: An examination of changes in technical aspects of the planning process in response to changing goals. Transport Policy, 15(2), 113–126. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handy, S., & Niemeier, D. A. (1997). Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 29(7), 1175–1194. doi: https://doi.org/10.1068/a291175
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hull, A. (2012). Transport matters. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, P. (2011). Developing and applying interactive visual tools to enhance stakeholder engagement in accessibility planning for mobility disadvantaged groups. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 2, 29–41. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2011.08.001
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, D. M., & Krizek, K. J. (2008). Planning for place and plexus. London/New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• McDonough, W., & Baungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle, remaking the way we make things. New York: North Point Press.
   Google Scholar
• Metropoolregio Amsterdam, Noord-Holland and Flevoland. (2009). Gebiedsagenda Noordwest Nederland Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, M. D., & Miller, E. J. (2001). Urban transportation planning (2nd ed.). New York: Mc Graw Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken. (2011). Zuid werkt! Nationaal programma kwaliteitssprong Zuid, Kamerstuk 26 September 2011. Den Haag: Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken.
   Google Scholar
• MuConsult B.V. and Move Mobility. (2014). De SVIR bereikbaarheidsindicator, handleiding voor toepassing in MIRT en Beter Benutten. Den Haag: Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu.
   Google Scholar
• Papa, E., Silva, C., te Brömmelstroet, M., & Hull, A. (2016). Accessibility instruments for planning practice: A review of European experiences. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 9(3), 57–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preston, J., & Rajé, F. (2007). Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion. Journal of Transport Geography, 15(3), 151–160. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prud'homme, R., & Lee, C. (1999). Size, sprawl, speed and the efficiency of cities. Urban Studies, 36(11), 1849–1858. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098992638
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rijk, Provincies Noord-Holland, Flevoland en Utrecht, Gemeenten Almere en Amsterdam. (2013). Bestuursovereenkomst RRAAM: Rijk-Regioprogramma Amsterdam – Almere – Markermeer. Den Haag: Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu.
   Google Scholar
• Rijkswaterstaat. (2007). Mobiliteitsonderzoek Nederland 2007: Tabellenboek. Den Haag: Rijkswaterstaat.
   Google Scholar
• Silva, C., Bertolini, L., Te Brömmelstroet, M., Milakis, D., & Papa, E. (2017). Accessibility instruments in planning practice: Bridging the implementation gap. Transport Policy, 53, 135–145. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.09.006
   Google Scholar
• Snellen, D., Hilbersand, H., & Hendriks, A. (2005). Nieuwbouw in beweging. Een analyse van het ruimtelijk mobiliteitsbeleid van VINEX. Rotterdam: Ruimtelijk Planbureau, NAI Uitgevers.
   Google Scholar
• Straatemeier, T., & Bertolini, L. (2008). Joint Accessibility Design: a framework developed for and with practitioners to stimulate the integration of regional land-use and transport strategies in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Record, 2077, 1–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.3141/2077-01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Transportation Research Board. (2001). Making transit work, TRB. Special report 257. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wegener, M., & Fürst, F. (1999). Land-use transport interaction: State of the art. Report. 46. Institutfür Raumplanung, Dortmund, 1999.
   Google Scholar