| dc.description.abstract | The effects of car-lite measures on transport poverty have hardly been investigated. Nevertheless, car-lite measures are increasingly being implemented in many Dutch cities. Car-lite allows for different use of (available) space in cities. The current and increasing demand for space by the automobility system cannot be sustained in the future.
Intervening in the existing transport system through car-lite measures may increase or decrease existing discrepancies in people's opportunities for development. In other words, people may experience an increase or decrease in the risk of transport poverty due to car-lite measures. It is expected that the effects of each car-lite measure - measured against the policy objective and local government context - will not be the same for each measure. In addition, looking explicitly at the effects of car-lite on transport poverty can contribute to the knowledge gap in the broader field of transport poverty. This led to the following main research question: How do different municipalities in the Netherlands implement the car-lite concept and what are its effects on transport poverty?
The main result was found in the combination of presumptions among mobility experts on the effect of car-lite measures on the risk of transport poverty and the case study conducted with two modeled car-lite measures.
An assumed negative effect of car-lite measures on the risk of transport poverty is found in the discrepancy in the parking standard used between the existing city - with an average parking standard - and the densification locations/ expansion areas with a much lower parking standard.
The modeling indicates a predominantly positive effect of the car-lite measures taken on the risk of transport poverty. Job accessibility by public transport increases, while job accessibility by car does not decrease excessively.
The results of this study are indicative, this is due to two main reasons. First, a limited number of experts were spoken to. For various reasons, 'key' municipalities in this study did not participate in the discussions on a possible link between car-free measures and an effect on the risk of transport poverty. A second reason why the results are indicative is the non-comparative case study and the limited number of projected car-lite measures. Ideally, a full-fledged traffic model would have been used - focusing on Overvecht. This was not possible because the model has to be made by a specialist and the cost far exceeds the purpose of the study. For this reason, Rijkswaterstaat's Mobility Scan was used.
This study succeeded in investigating global effects of car-lite measures on the risk of transport poverty. Responses from municipal mobility experts have provided insights on potential weak points in urban developments with regard to car-lite areas and people's accessibility. Through a case study - however limited in its scope - it shows a picture where a widely taken measure (speed reduction) does not have excessive adverse effects on the car user at a travel time that is acceptable (±45 minutes). The incentive measure shows that public transport can increase job accessibility without harming job accessibility via car. Thus, car-lite measures can boost car-dependent groups and those relying on public transport in their job accessibility without putting transport-type-dependent groups at a disadvantage.
Several recommendations have been issued to support municipal authorities and several suggestions are made for follow-up research. A major piece of advice to municipalities is: Embrace Broad Prosperity and use it as a goal in considering mobility measures. Broad Prosperity takes a broader view (including transport poverty) when considering policy and mobility measures than is often the case now. | |
