Cost—benefit analysis (CBA) has become a key instrument for the evaluation of transport planning policies and projects in the Netherlands. Currently, this instrument is also used to evaluate integrated land-use and transport strategies. In Dutch transport-related CBA the conceptualisation of benefits is directly related to a narrow understanding of mobility. In this paper we argue that this understanding introduces an undesirable bias in transport planning that favours mobility-enhancing projects. We argue that the benefit to society of contemporary transport planning practice is no longer the improvement of mobility, but the improvement of accessibility. Therefore, Dutch CBA should acknowledge this in its calculations and shift from a mobility focus towards an accessibility orientation. We use a hypothetical illustration to show what the added value of an accessibility orientation can be. It facilitates a mindset where new and more sustainable directions for improving the competitiveness of regions are easier to find.
AnnemaJ AKoopmansCvan WeeG P, 2006, “Evaluating transport infrastructure investments: The Dutch experience with a standardized approach”Transport Reviews27125–150
2.
BanisterD, 1999, “Planning more to travel less: Land use and transport”Town Planning Review70313–338
3.
BanisterD, 2008, “The sustainable mobility paradigm”Transport Policy1573–80
4.
BaudrillardJ, 1998The Consumer Society (Sage, London)
BaumanZ, 2005Work, Consumerism and the New Poor (Open University Press, Maidenhead, Berks)
7.
BaumanZ, 2007Liquid Life (Polity Press, Cambridge)
8.
BergerP LLuckmannT, 1985The Social Construction of Reality (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middx)
9.
BertoliniLle ClercqF, 2003, “Urban development without more mobility by car? Lessons from Amsterdam, a multimodal urban region”Environment and Planning A35575–589
10.
BertoliniLle ClercqFKapoenL, 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 Policy12207–220
11.
BertoliniLle ClercqFStraatemeierT, 2008, “Urban transportation planning in transition”Transport Policy1569–72
12.
BrehenyM J, 1992, “The contradictions of the compact city: A review”, in Sustainable Development and Urban Form Ed. BrehenyM J (Pion, London) pp 139–159
13.
BristowA LNellthorpJ, 2000, “Transport project appraisal in the European Union”Transport Policy751–60
14.
BurtonE, 2000, “The compact city: Just or just compact? A preliminary analysis”Urban Studies371969–2001
15.
CerveroR, 1989, “The jobs—housing balance and regional mobility”Journal of the American Planning Association55136–150
16.
CerveroR, 1996, “Jobs—housing balance revisited: Trends and impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area”Journal of the American Planning Association62492–511
17.
CerveroRDuncanM, 2006, “Which reduces vehicle travel more: Jobs—housing balance or retail—housing mixing?”Journal of the American Planning Association72475–490
18.
CoombeD, 1996, “Induced traffic: What do transportation models tell us?”Transportation2383–101
19.
CresswellT, 2008, “Understanding mobility holistically: The case of Hurricane Katrina”, in The Ethics of Mobilities: Rethinking Place, Exclusion, Freedom and Environment Eds BergmannSSagerT (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 129–140
20.
CresswellTUtengT P, 2008, “Gendered mobilities: Towards an holistic understanding”, in Gendered Mobilities Eds UtengT PCresswellT (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 1–12
21.
de JongGTuinengaJKouwenhovenM, 2008, “Prognoses van het Landelijk Model Systeem: Komen Ze Uit?”, in Colloquium Vervoersplanologisch Speurwerk, Santpoort, http://www.cvs-congres.nl/cvspdFdocs/cvs08_62.pdf
22.
de JongMGeerlingsH, 2003, “Exposing weaknesses in interactive planning: The remarkable return of comprehensive policy analysis in The Netherlands”Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal21281–291
23.
DijstM, 1999, “Action space as planning concept in spatial planning”Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment14163–182
24.
EijgenraamC J JKoopmansC CTangP J GVersterA C P, 2000Deel I Hoofdrapport. Evaluatie van Grote Infrastructuurprojecten. Leidraad voor Kosten-baten Analyse. Onderzoeksprogramma Economische Effecten InfrastructuurCentraal Planbureau en Nederlands Economisch Instituut, The Hague
25.
FeatherstoneM, 1982, “The body in consumer culture”Theory, Culture and Society118–33
26.
FeatherstoneM, 2004, “Consumer culture”International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences2662–2669
27.
FerreiraABateyP, 2007, “Re-thinking accessibility planning: A multi-layer conceptual framework and its policy implications”Town Planning Review78429–458
28.
FerreiraABateyP, 2010, “University towns and the multi-layer transport model: Excavating the connections between academic ethos and transport problems”Planning Theory and Practice11573–592
29.
FriedmannJ, 1987Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
30.
GeursKvan EckJ, 2003, “Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use scenarios: The implications of job competition, land-use, and infrastructure developments for the Netherlands”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design3069–87
31.
GeursKvan WeeG P, 2004a, “Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions”Journal of Transport Geography12127–140
32.
GeursKvan WeeG P, 2004b, “Land-use/transport interaction models as tools for sustainability impact assessment of transport investments: Review and research perspectives”The European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research4333–355
33.
GeursKvan WeeG PRietveldP, 2006, “Accessibility appraisal of integrated land-use—transport strategies: Methodology and case study for the Netherlands Randstad Area”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design33639–660
34.
GeursKBoonWvan WeeG P, 2009, “Social impacts of transport: Literature review and the state of the practice of transport appraisal in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom”Transport Reviews2969–90
35.
GeursKZondagBJongG DBokM D, 2010a, “Accessibility appraisal of land-use/transport policy strategies: More than just adding up travel-time savings”Transportation Research Part D15382–393
36.
GeursK TZondagBBokM D, 2010b, “De Bereikbaarheidswinst van Verstedelijkingsbeleid”Rooilijn43254–259
37.
GeurstK, 2010, “Measuring accessibility of infrastructure projects”, in NARSC Conference (Denver), http://www.narsc.org
38.
GiulianoG, 1991, “Is jobs—housing balance a transportation issue?”Transportation Research Record number 1305, 305–312
39.
GiulianoGSmallK A, 1993, “Is the journey to work explained by urban structure?”Urban Studies301485–1501
40.
GolobTBeckmannMZahaviY, 1981, “A utility-theory travel demand model incorporating travel budgets”Transportation Research Part B15B375–389
41.
GoodwinP, 1996, “Empirical evidence on induced traffic: A review and synthesis”Transportation2335–54
42.
HaezendonckE, 2007Transport Project Evaluation: Extending the Social Cost—Benefit Approach (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos)
43.
HägerstrandT, 1970, “What about people in regional science?”Regional Science Association Papers246–21
44.
HaldenD, 2003, “Accessibility analysis: Concepts and their application to transport policy, programme and project evaluation”, in Transport Projects, Programmes and Policies: Evaluation Needs and Capabilities Eds PearmanAMackiePNellthorpJ (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 227–242
45.
HaldenDMcGuiganDNisbetA, 2000Accessibility Review of Measuring Techniques and their Application (Scottish Executive, Edinburgh)
46.
HamiltonB W, 1982, “Wasteful commuting”Journal of Political Economy901035–1053
47.
HamiltonB W, 1989, “Wasteful commuting again”Journal of Political Economy971497–1504
48.
HandyS, 2002Accessibility- versus Mobility-enhancing Strategies for Addressing Automobile Dependence in the USUS Department of Environmental Science and Policy, prepared for the European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Davis, CA
49.
HandyS, 2008, “Regional transportation planning in the US: An examination of changes in technical aspects of the planning process in response to changing goals”Transport Policy15113–126
50.
HansenW G, 1959, “How accessibility shapes land use”Journal of the American Institute of Planners2573–76
51.
HealeyP, 2007Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for Our Times (Routledge, London)
52.
HillsP, 1996, “What is induced traffic?”Transportation235–16
53.
HullA, 2008, “Policy integration: What will it take to achieve more sustainable transport solutions in cities?”Transport Policy1594–103
54.
JanelleD G, 1968, “Central place development in a time—space framework”The Professional Geographer205–10
55.
JanelleD G, 1969, “Spatial reorganization: A model and concept”Annals of the Association of American Geographers59348–364
56.
JenksMBurtonEWilliamsK, 2002The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? (Spon, Oxford)
57.
KawabataMShenQ, 2006, “Job accessibility as an indicator of auto-oriented urban structure: A comparison of Boston and Los Angeles with Tokyo”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design33115–130
LevineJ, 1998, “Rethinking accessibility and jobs—housing balance”Journal of the American Planning Association64133–149
60.
LevinsonDKanchiS, 2002, “Road capacity and the allocation of time”Journal of Transportation and Statistics525–46
61.
LevinsonDWuY, 2005, “The rational locator reexamined: Are travel times still stable?”Transportation32187–202
62.
LevinsonDKumarA, 1994, “The rational locator: Why travel times have remained stable”Journal of the American Planning Association60319–332
63.
MackieP, 1996, “Induced traffic and economic appraisal”Transportation23103–119
64.
McLuhanM, 1964Understanding the Media: The Extensions of Man (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
65.
McPheeJ, 1969Levels of the Game (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York)
66.
MarvinSGuyS, 1999, “Towards a new logic of transport planning?”Town Planning Review70139–158
67.
MetzD, 2004, “Travel time—variable or constant?”Journal of Transport Economics and Policy38333–344
68.
MeyerMMillerE, 2001Urban Transportation Planning2nd edition (McGraw-Hill, New York)
69.
MokhtarianP LSalomonI, 2001, “How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations”Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice35695–719
70.
MokhtarianP LSalomonIRedmondL S, 2001, “Understanding the demand for travel: It's not purely ‘derived’”Innovation14355–380
71.
NaessP, 2006, “Cost—benefit analyses of transportation investments: Neither critical nor realistic”Journal of Critical Realism532–60
72.
NeumanM, 2005, “The compact city fallacy”Journal of Planning Education and Research2511–26
OryD TMokhtarianP LRedmondL SSalomonICollantesGChooS, 2004, “When is commuting desirable to the individual?”Growth and Change35334–359
75.
OwensS, 1995, “From ‘predict and provide’ to ‘predict and prevent’?: Pricing and planning in transport policy”Transport Policy243–49
76.
PearceDAtkinsonGMouratoS, 2006Cost—Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments (OECD, Paris)
77.
PengZ-R, 1997, “The jobs—housing balance and urban commuting”Urban Studies341215–1235
78.
PopeJGraceW, 2006, “Sustainability assessment in context: Issues of process, policy and governance”Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management8373–398
79.
RAND-Europe, 2002Backcasting met het LMS Versie 7, Eindrapport, Rapport voor AVV (RAND-Europe, Leiden)
80.
RedmondL SMokhtarianP L, 2001, “The positive utility of the commute: Modeling ideal commute time and relative desired commute amount”Transportation28179–205
81.
RouwendalJNijkampP, 2004, “Living in two worlds: A review of home-to-work decisions”Growth and Change35287–303
82.
SatoY, 2004, “City structure, search, and workers' job acceptance behavior”Journal of Urban Economics55350–370
83.
SchaferAVictorD, 1997, “The past and future of global mobility”Scientific American22736–39
84.
SchönD, 1983The Reflective Practitioner (Basic Books, New York)
85.
SchwanenTDijstMDielemanF M, 2004, “Policies for urban form and their impact on travel: The Netherlands experience”Urban Studies41579–603
86.
SennettR, 1998The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism (W W Norton, London)
87.
StopherP R, 2004, “Reducing road congestion: A reality check”Transport Policy11117–131
88.
SzalaiA E, 1972The Use of Time: Daily Activities of Urban and Suburban Populations in Twelve Countries (Mouton, The Hague)
89.
Te BrömmelstroetMBertoliniL, 2011, “The role of transport related models in urban planning practice”Transport Reviews31139–143
90.
ThomasLCousinsW, 2002, “The compact city: A successful, desirable and achievable urban form?”, in The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? Eds JenksMBurtonEWilliamsK (Spon, Oxford) pp 53–65
91.
van WeeG P, 2010, “Ruimtelijke inrichting en transport: Goed voor milieu, of voor bereikbaarheid?”Tijdschrift voor Vervoerswetenschap4140–143
92.
van WeeG PRietveldPMeursH, 2006, “Is average daily travel time expenditure constant? In search of explanations for an increase in average travel time”Journal of Transport Geography14109–122
93.
Waterstaat and Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, 2009Spelregels van het Meerjarenprogramma Infrastructuur, Ruimte en TransportMinisterie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, Den Haag
WilliamsKBurtonEJenksM, 2002, “Achieving the compact city through intensification: An acceptable option?”, in The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? Eds WilliamsKBurtonEJenksM (Spon, Oxford) pp 83–96
96.
WillsonR, 2001, “Assessing communicative rationality as a transportation planning paradigm”Transportation281–31
97.
WittelA, 2001, “Toward a network sociality”Theory, Culture and Society1851–76
