Todor Stojanovski 2019

Urban Form and Mobility
Analysis and Information to
Catalyse Sustainable
Development
TODOR STOJANOVSKI
Doctoral Thesis in Planning and Decision Analysis
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
School of Architecture and the Built Environment
Department of Urban Planning and Environment
SE -100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
Title: Urban Form and Mobility - Analysis and Information to Catalyse Sustainable
Development
Author: Todor Stojanovski
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
School of Architecture and the Built Environment
Department of Urban Planning and Environment
Division for Urban and Regional Studies
TRITA-ABE-DLT-1911
ISBN: 978-91-7873-235-7
Printed: US-AB Universitetsservice, Stockholm
Akademisk avhandling som med tillstånd av KTH i Stockholm framlägges till offentlig
granskning för avläggande av teknologie doktorsexamen fredagen den 14 juni 2019, kl.
10.00 i Kollegiesalen, KTH, Brinellvägen 8, Stockholm.
ABSTRACT
Urban transportation today consumes scarce resources of fossil fuels and
it is a major cause for environmental damage and accelerating climate
change. To achieve sustainable mobility in the cities, it is necessary to
improve energy efficiency and lower carbon emissions through the
promotion of walking, cycling and especially public transportation.
The urban form and the embeddedness of automobility is a
challenging obstacle on the way towards sustainable mobility and cities.
Many neighbourhoods and cities, particularly in developed countries like
Sweden, were specifically designed and developed to accommodate the
private car, individual mobility and freedom of movement. It is
impossible to walk or cycle and the public transportation is not
competitive. The lack of mobility choices in these neighbourhoods and
cities hinders the possibilities to shift towards more sustainable travel
alternatives. Urban designers and planners can help with redesigning
these neighbourhoods and creating urban forms that encourage walking,
cycling and increased use of public transportation if they are aware about
the possible modal shares, energy efficiency, environmental performance
and carbon implications of transportation in existing and newly planned
neighbourhoods.
This Doctoral Thesis examines Swedish urbanisation and the
historical integration of public transportation in competition with other
transportation modes. It analyses emergence of typical neighbourhoods
that oriented towards walking (the pre-industrial city), to public
transportation (the industrializing city), to the private automobile (the
modern/industrial city) and ultimately to a wide range of mobility choices
(the postmodern/post-industrial city with sustainable city
neighbourhoods). It investigates furthermore the effect of urban form
variables (including neighbourhood type) on travel (modal shares of
public transportation). Based upon this empirical knowledge, the
Doctoral Thesis proposes a mobility choices model based on urban form
and accessibility factors commonly used in urban planning, design and
development practices. The mobility choices model produces heat maps
and visually informs about the integration with walking, cycling, public
transportation and private car, modal shares, carbon emissions and
transportation energy use. This information can (potentially) trigger
urban transformation or redesign car-oriented neighbourhoods to better
integrate energy efficient and environmentally friendly mobility
alternatives and catalyse the development of more sustainable cities.
SAMMANFATTNING
Den urbana utmaningen är att bryta transportsystemets oljeberoende och
miljöpåverkan. Transporterna drivs idag av begränsade fossila bränslen
som intensifierar klimatförändringar. Ambitionen är att skapa
integrerade, multimodala transportsystem där det är lätt att gå, cykla och
fullt utnyttja kollektivtrafikens potential.
Många stadsdelar och städer, särskilt i Sverige, utformades enligt
privatbilismens credo om frihet att röra sig när som helst och vart som
helst. Idag är det omöjligt att gå eller cykla och kollektivtrafiken är inte
konkurrenskraftig i flesta städer som utvecklades för privata bilen.
Stadens form hindrar möjligheterna att flytta från privata bilen till mer
hållbara resealternativ. Stadsplanerare kan hjälpa till att förändra
bilanpassade stadsdelar och bygga nya stadsmiljöer som uppmuntrar
gång, cykel och kollektivtrafik, om de får information om
transportenergieffektivitet och miljöpåverkan.
Denna doktorsavhandling undersöker den svenska urbaniseringen
och anpassning av kollektivtrafiken i svenska städer. Den analyserar
utveckling av typiska stadsdelar anpassade för att gå (den preindustriella
staden), åka kollektivtrafik (den industrialiseringsstaden), privatbilismen
(den moderna industriella staden) och den postmoderna/postindustriella
staden (med nya hållbara stadsdelar som utvecklas vid multimodala
alléer) samt undersöker effekten av bebyggelse (urbanformvariabler
inklusive stadstyper eller typområde) på resvanor (andel kollektivtrafik).
Utifrån denna empiriska kunskap, föreslår doktorsavhandlingen en
transpordeklarationsmodell baserat på bebyggelse och
tillgänglighetsfaktorer som vanligen används i stadsplanering, utformning och -utveckling. En transportdeklaration är ett sätt att
informera om hur väl en byggnad är integrerad i förhållande till gång-,
cykel- och kollektivtrafik samt trafik med privatbil.
Transpordeklarationen producerar kartor och informerar visuellt
möjligheter att gå, cykla, åka kollektivt och köra bil, prognoserar
färdmedelsfördelning, koldioxidutsläpp och transportenergianvändning.
Denna information kan (potentiellt) inspirera stadsförvandling och
omforma bilanpassade stadsdelar för att bättre integrera energieffektiva
och miljövänliga mobilitetsalternativ och katalysera utvecklingen mot
hållbara städer.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Doctoral Thesis was supported by grants from the Swedish
Innovation Agency Vinnova (2009-01233 and 2015-03483), Trafikverket
(A-2013-0962), Energimyndigheten, the Swedish Energy Agency (2017003267) and the Riksbyggen’s Den Goda Staden scholarship. Without
Vinnova, Trafikverket, Riksbyggen and Energimyndigheten this research
would not have been possible.
I start by thanking my supervisors Andrew Karvonen, Tigran Haas,
Karl Kottenhoff, Haris Koutsopoulos and Lars-Göran Mattsson. Kalle
employed me as a PhD student and put me on the academic path. He
shared his knowledge in public transportation and showed me a world of
buses and BRT that linked to my own interest in cites and urban
morphology. Andy taught me academic writing and his pragmatic advices
brought a decisive edge in my research. Without it, I would have never
finished this Doctoral Thesis. Tigran’s support in networking and help
with grant applications kept the research on public transportation and
cities, multimodality and urban design going. I am particularly grateful to
my supervisors Haris Koutsopoulos and Lars-Göran Mattsson for the
introduction to the world of transportation modelling and Land Use
Transportation interaction (LUTi). I am also very grateful to Carl-Johan
Engström and Ulf Ranhagen who were opponents for the Licentiate
Thesis and the final seminar for the Doctoral Thesis and to Folke Snickars
who critically reviewed the manuscript. Their comments and constructive
suggestions helped to improve this research.
There were many involved in the research projects about BRT-TOD
and the mobility choices model (transportdeklaration). I am indebted to
Karolina Isaksson for the constructive insights on the initial scholarship
proposal on the transportationdeklaration. Big thanks to Hans Sipilä and
Bengt Sundborg for the tips and proofreading of the grants that made this
research possible. I want also to say thanks to Inga-Maj Eriksson who
supported and helped with my research. Special thanks goes to Charlotta
Szczepanowski, the former head of the sustainability department at
Riksbyggen, who thought that the transportdeklaration project is very
interesting and helped to create a network of development practitioners,
project leaders and sustainability specialists that give invaluable input in
this project: Anna Maria Walleby, Veronika Johansson, Lena Fakt and
Stefan Hoflund. These projects would not have been possible without a
big reference group. My thanks go to Frida Nordström, Mattias Bodin,
Hans Hauska, Gyözö Gidofalvi, Maria Xylia, Greger Henriksson, Olle
Gustafsson, Emma Svärd, Mattias Karlsson, Kée Tengblad, Moa
Rosenqvist, Tesad Alam, Fredrik Sundberg, Adam Mickiewicz, Pelle
Edvall, Semida Silveira, Sven-Allan Bjerkemo, Einar Tufvesson, Torbjörn
Einarsson, Anders Hagson, Göran Hallén, Sören Bergerland, Bengt
Holmberg, Per Gunnar Andersson, Bengt Stålner and Nils Viking.
I would also like to thank the colleagues and staff from old division of
Traffic and Logistics and old department of Transport Science, division of
Energy and Climate Studies, division of Urban and Regional Studies and
department for Urban Planning for the everyday talks, seminars and
company. Another source of inspiration is a group of urban
morphologists and city researchers. My discovery of the International
Seminar for Urban Form (ISUF) conferences in 2012 plotted the typomorphological course of this Doctoral Thesis. Thanks to all the
Conzenians, typologists, pattern linguists and eclectics, particularly Ivor
Samuels, Hajo Neis, Giuseppe Strappa, Sofie Kirt Strandbygaard, Pierre
Gauthier, Paul Sanders, Vitor Oliveira, Stephen Marshall, Giancarlo
Cataldi, Anne Moudon Vernez and Jeremy Whitehand for city tours and
continuous discussions on urban form, ideas, types, patterns, elements.
Thanks to Paul L. Casey and Donald Shoup for inspiring talks about
cities, buses, and parking. Thank you Malin Boström for introducing the
energideklaration (that turned into transportdeklaration research).
In the end, I would like to thank my family and friends who inspired
me along the way. My biggest thanks to my closest. My mom and dad are
in love and that protecting aura always gave me the freedom to daydream.
My sister is always thinking about where to travel next and whenever I
talk with her, I feel as if I have a pair of wings. When an architect and
eclectic typo-morphologist like me has a licence for daydreaming and a
pair of wings, he envisions cities in space and colonies on other planets.
Luckily, my daughter is jumping wildly around to bring me down on the
planet Earth. It is time to play dolls and superheroes, you crazy tato
(crazy is what superheroes say when things go in a wrong way and tato
means dad in Macedonian). I am not allowed to fly to Mars until she is 18,
but please write year 2032 in your calendars. The year when we will lay
the foundation of the first city in space. Hihih. A special mention goes to
my uncle who passed away last year. With his bohemian happiness, party
spirit and passionate singing, even the underworld is probably a lovely
place right now. Without the help of all of you, it would have not been
possible to finish this Doctoral Thesis.
Stockholm, May 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ....................................................................................................... iv
Sammanfattning ......................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ................................................................................... viii
List of publications .................................................................................... xii
Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
Summary of the Doctoral Thesis .............................................................. 4
Licentiate Thesis .................................................................................... 6
Paper 7 ................................................................................................... 7
Paper 8 ................................................................................................... 7
Paper 9 ................................................................................................... 8
Organisation of the Kappa........................................................................ 9
Background and theoretical framework ..................................................... 11
Sustainable mobility as a paradigm ........................................................ 11
Urban morphology and the analysis of cities ......................................... 13
Spaces and flows (morphological structure and representations) ..... 15
Development cycles and morphogenesis in cities .............................. 19
Morphological analyses and information in a larger framework of
urbanism .............................................................................................. 23
Modelling travel behaviour and urban form .......................................... 25
The effect of land use variables on travel and forecasting travel ....... 27
Environmental perception of urban form and travel behaviour ........ 28
Informing sustainable mobility .............................................................. 31
Competitiveness between transportation modes and ideal
accessibility ranges .............................................................................. 33
Transportation morphogenesis and ideal cities ................................. 35
Methodology .............................................................................................. 47
Morphological analyses .......................................................................... 47
Typo-morphological methods ............................................................. 47
Urban analytics.................................................................................... 51
Travel forecasting and mobility choices model...................................... 52
Results and discussion............................................................................... 57
Cities and transportation systems .......................................................... 57
Urbanisation patterns in Swedish cities ............................................. 57
The effect of transportation systems on Swedish cities and
neighbourhoods ................................................................................... 60
Urban patterns of (ideal) public transportation cities........................ 69
The effect of urban form on travel behaviour ........................................ 73
Effect of density and diversity on travel patterns ............................... 73
Beyond density .................................................................................... 74
Analysing urban forms to inform sustainable mobility ......................... 78
Conclusions ................................................................................................ 87
Transforming cities and improving public transportation for
sustainable mobility ............................................................................... 87
Density and neighbourhood type, urban design and typologies ........... 89
Analysing urban forms and informing sustainable mobility ................. 91
Directions for future research ................................................................ 92
References.................................................................................................. 95
Critical glossary and definitions of terms ............................................... 123
Table of figures ......................................................................................... 137
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
1-6. Stojanovski T. (2013). Bus rapid transit (BRT) and Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD): How to transform and adjust the Swedish cities for
attractive bus systems like BRT? What demands BRT? (Licentiate Thesis,
KTH Royal Institute of Technology).
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-128526
7. Stojanovski T. (2019). Urban Design and Public Transportation –
Public Spaces, Visual Proximity and Transit-Oriented Development
(TOD). Journal of Urban Design (forthcoming)
https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2019.1592665
8. Stojanovski T. (2018). How density, diversity, land use and
neighborhood type influences bus mobility in the Swedish city of
Karlstad: Mixing spatial analytic and typo-morphological approaches to
assess the indirect effect of urban form on travel. Journal of Transport
and Land Use, 11(1).
http://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2018.1089
9. Stojanovski T. (2019). Urban form and mobility choices: Informing
about sustainable travel alternatives, carbon emissions and energy use
from transportation in Swedish neighbourhoods. Sustainability, 11(2).
https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11020548
INTRODUCTION
The urban challenge in sustainable development described in Our
Common Future involves ‘world cities that have a global reach and draw
their resources and energy from distant lands, with enormous aggregate
impacts on the ecosystems of those lands’ (UN, 1987, p.241). In a rapidly
urbanizing world, it is important to fit cities into the pattern of clouds,
oceans, greenery and soils on the planet Earth.
There is no blueprint for sustainable development. Likewise, there is
no universally accepted definition for sustainable cities or mobility.
Instead, it requires a new paradigm to understand the complex link
between transportation systems and cities, mobility and society (Cervero,
1997; Marshall & Banister, 2000; Marshall, 2001; Marshall, 2005a;
Banister, 2008; Rode et al., 2017). Transportation consumes scarce
resources of fossil fuels (Marshall & Banister, 2000). It is responsible for
roughly one-third of all CO2 emissions in the Earth’s atmosphere, making
it a major cause for environmental damage and accelerating climate
change (Urry, 2004). Urban transportation is currently the largest single
source of global transportation-related carbon emissions and the largest
local source of urban air pollution (Rode et al., 2017). To achieve
sustainable mobility, it is necessary to either reduce overall travel by
decreasing the distance of trips or to realise greater energy efficiency and
lower carbon emissions through the promotion of walking, cycling and
public transportation (Ringenson et al., 2018).
Achieving sustainable mobility is hindered by the urban form. Many
cities in developed countries such as Sweden were specifically designed
and developed throughout the 20th century to accommodate the private
car, individual mobility and freedom of movement (Flink, 1975; Safdie,
1998; Urry, 2004; Dennis & Urry, 2009; write about the automobile and
car culture; Hagson, 2004; Lundin, 2008; narrate the story of Swedish
car society). The private car produced incredible economic growth and
innovation, convenience, prosperity and mobile lifestyles. However, the
lack of mobility choices in these automobile-dependent cities created a
continuous and ever-increasing demand for petroleum. In the motorway
hierarchies of these cities, public buses are often slow and uncomfortable
travel alternative to the private car (Figure 1) and it is impossible to walk
or cycle between neighbourhoods, not only because of the fragmented
urban regions and their size, but also because of the particular design of
the roads within the neighbourhoods (Southworth, 2005a). In a context
of Swedish cities, the modal share of automobile travel in the last 20 years
has remained roughly the same despite a commitment to sustainable
mobility (Trafikanalysis, 2017; 2018).
1
Figure 1. Non-competitive public transportation in neighbourhoods and
cities designed for cars. The bus lines must adapt to the road hierarchies
(A). The buses can drive up to three times longer distances than cars. The
Licentiate Thesis investigated ways to introduce Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
and busways (B) and trigger Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) in
these neighbourhoods designed for private automobiles
There is a significant amount of research on the effects of urban form on
travel in terms of Density, land use and D-variables (Pushkarev & Zupan,
1977; Newman & Kenworthy, 1989; 1999; 2015; Cervero, 1989; 1991;
Crane, 1996a; 2000; Bertolini, 1996; 1999; 2017; Crane & Crepeau, 1998;
Cervero & Kockelman, 1997; Ewing & Cervero, 2001; 2010; 2017; Crane &
Boarnett, 2001; Naess, 2006; 2011; 2012; Cervero et al., 2009; Boarnet,
2011; Kenworthy, 2019). Likewise, there is large body of literature on
walkable cities and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) (Calthorpe,
1993; Southworth & Owens, 1993; Cervero & Radisch, 1996; Southworth,
1997; 2005; Boarnet & Compin, 1999; Dittmar & Ohland, 2003; TRB,
2004; Currie, 2006; Curtis, 2008; 2012a; 2012b; Curtis et al., 2009;
Renne, 2009; Boarnet et al., 2011; Cervero & Sulliven, 2011; Chorus &
Bertolini, 2011, Bertolini, et al., 2012; Chatman, 2013; Pojani & Stead,
2014a; 2014b; 2015a; 2015b; Olaru & Curtis, 2015; Papa & Bertolini,
2015; Vale, 2015; Guthrie & Fan, 2016; Griffiths & Curtis, 2017; Thomas
2
et al., 2018; D’Arcci, 2019; Majic & Pafka, 2019). There are many studies
on accessibility (Hansen, 1959; Wachs & Kumagai, 1973; Koenig, 1980;
Brotchie, 1984; Wegener, 1994; 2004; 2014; Brotchie at al., 1995; 1996;
Handy & Niemeier, 1997; Talen & Anselin, 1998; Levine, 1998; Van Wee,
2002; 2011; 2016; Levine & Garb, 2002; Talen, 2003; Geurs & Van Wee,
2004; Páez et al., 2012; Grengs et al., 2010; Levine et al., 2012; Olaru &
Curtis, 2015; Rode et al, 2017; in a Swedish context Karlqvist &
Lundqvist, 1972; Lundquist, 1973; 1996; 1998; Lundqvist & Mattsson,
1983; Boyce & Lundqvist, 1987; Eliasson, J., & Mattsson, 2000; 2001;
Adolphos et al., 2006; Adolpson, 2009; Olofsson et al., 2013). However,
there are few connections between urbanist practices with this research
and environmental goals in sustainable mobility. Urban planners and
designers typically work with land uses and conventional zoning, urban
design guidelines and Form-Based Codes (FBCs) (Krier, 1979; 1983; Krier
1984; 2009; Duany & Talen, 2002; Talen, 2002; 2009; 2012; 2013; BenJoseph, 2005; Walters, 2007; Marshall, 2011). The urban form factors in
these urbanist practices (such as land uses, employment and residential
densities, Floor Space Indexes (FSI), Open Space Indexes (OSI), building
setbacks, building heights, street widths, parking requirements, etc.) do
not link with sustainable mobility indicators such as modal shares,
carbon emissions and energy efficiency of transportation.
Urban form and mobility patterns are intertwined (Brotchie, 1984;
Wegener, 1994; 2004; 2014; Brotchie at al., 1995). Transportation
revolutions and visions of future mobilities (such as sustainable
development) continuously shape, problematize and reshape cities (e.g.,
Howard, 1898; Le Corbusier, 1986 [1923]; 1987 [1925]; Jellicoe, 1961;
Jacobs, 1961; Krier, 1984; 2009; Duany & Platter-Zyberk, 1991;
Calthorpe, 1993). This process implies continuous urban and
transportation morphogenesis (Vance, 1977; 1990a; 1990b; Moudon,
1997). Urban planners and designers can help by creating visions and
urban forms that encourage walking, cycling and the increased use of
public transportation, but they need to be aware of the environmental
performance and carbon implications of transportation systems. The aim
of this Doctoral Thesis is to produce empirical research on the effect of
urban form variables (specifically density and diversity) on travel (transit
patronage), but also integrate this research into urbanist concepts about
the effect of (public) transportation systems on cities in a context of
sustainable mobility. This research aims to emphasize mobility choices
and the competition between transportation modes in sustainable
transportation debates by focusing on public transportation, carbon
neutral and energy efficient transportation. These insights are intended to
3
inform urban transformation of auto-centric cities and the redesign of the
existing neighbourhoods with unsustainable travel patterns.
The research questions (RQs) focus on the transformation of cities for
multiple mobility choices emphasizing public transportation:
1. What is the effect of public transportation systems on cities? What
are the specific development patterns around public transportation?
What are the implications for urban planning, design and
development? (Licentiate Thesis, Paper 7)
2. Which urban form variables influence public transportation use?
What is the effect on density and diversity (as mix of residences and
jobs) on modal share of public transportation? (Licentiate Thesis,
Paper 8)
3. How can research on the effect of urban form on travel (walking,
cycling, public transportation and private car) be integrated into
sustainable mobility indicators to inform mobility choices, energy use
and carbon emissions from transportation? (Paper 9)
All of the RQs are also supported by research from the Licentiate Thesis
that focuses on the interrelationship between urban form and transit, Bus
Rapid Transit and Transit-Oriented Development (BRT-TOD).
Summary of the Doctoral Thesis
This Doctoral Thesis is a compilation of a Licentiate Thesis, a Kappa (this
chapter) and three papers. Table 1 summarises the list of publications.
Table 1: List of publications included in the PhD thesis
Licentiate
Thesis
(Paper 1-6)
Paper 7
Paper 8
Paper 9
Title
Bus rapid transit (BRT) and TransitOriented Development (TOD): How to
transform and adjust the Swedish cities for
attractive bus systems like BRT? What
demands BRT?
Urban design and public transportation:
Public spaces, visual proximity and
Transit- Oriented Development (TOD)
How density, diversity, land use and
neighborhood type influences bus mobility
in the Swedish city of Karlstad: Mixing
spatial analytic and typo-morphological
approaches to assess the indirect effect of
urban form on travel
Sustainable cities and multimodal travel:
Using urban form and accessibility factors
to estimate modal shares and energy use
from transportation
4
Status
Defended and
published in 2013
Published,
Journal of Urban
Design
Published,
Journal of
Transport and
Land Use
Published,
Sustainability
The Licentiate Thesis and three papers are structured as integrated parts
of an overarching analytic framework (Figure 2). The Licentiate Thesis
has a broad scope on Swedish urbanisation, the effects of public
transportation on the 19th century city and the competition with the
private automobile in the 20th century (RQ1 and RQ2). It examines the
emergence of typical neighbourhoods (particularly TODs), their location
in the urban regions and possibilities to interlink them in BRT-TOD
metropolises. Paper 7 examines urban design for public transportation in
detail and focuses on urban spaces around transit stops, while Paper 8
focuses on specific urban form variables (D-variables such as Density,
Diversity, but also categorical variables including land use and
neighbourhood type) and investigates the effects on public transportation
patronage and modal share (RQ2). Paper 9 returns to the broad
perspective and proposes sustainable mobility indicators derived from a
mobility choices model to inform the integration of walking, cycling,
public transportation and the private car by calculating modal shares
based on the travel preconditions embedded in urban forms (RQ3).
Figure 2: The publications as pieces of an analysing and information
puzzle in a framework of urbanism
The following four subsections summarize the publications.
5
Licentiate Thesis
The Licentiate Thesis explored how urban form (in terms of Density and
other D-variables) influences public transportation and what kinds of
development effects are produced by public transportation (particularly
bus systems) in cities. The aim of this research was to provide empirical
evidence to inform visions of new public transportation systems such as
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in Swedish cities and to catalyse urban
development (TOD) around regional transit nodes and local transit
corridors. This urban transformation is especially important in smaller
Swedish cities where automobile travel comprises up to 90% of the modal
split. Improved integration with public transportation (BRT as mini
metro system) would compel many travellers to choose the public bus
instead of private automobile, thereby contributing to more sustainable
mobility.
The Licentiate Thesis analysed the urbanisation of Swedish cities and
the emergence of typical neighbourhoods that evolved from walking (the
pre-industrial city), to public transportation (the industrial city), to the
private automobile (the modern city) and ultimately to a wide range of
mobility choices (the postmodern city with sustainable city
neighbourhoods). The Licentiate Thesis also focused on the new
prototype of sustainable city neighbourhood, Hammarby Sjöstad. The
emphasis on the development of new sustainable neighbourhoods such as
Hammarby Sjöstad (not always along new BRT or LRT systems)
preserves the neighbourhoods that emerged during the modernisation of
Swedish cities and the ascendency of the automobile. This is problematic
with respect to a holistic approach to sustainable mobility that involves a
range of mobility choices and the integration of walking, cycling and
public transportation. The lack of mobility choices in the neighbourhoods
of the Swedish modern city is not addressed and many of these new
sustainable neighbourhoods are located on waterfronts where it is
difficult to provide suitable and direct public transportation services.
The Licentiate Thesis examined these issues through a broad urbanist
framework to understand the morphological aspects of the interaction
between public transportation and urban form. Based on the analysis of
Swedish urbanisation, it proposed an alternative approach of BRT-TOD
that emphasised the overlaying of neighbourhood types with a typology of
public transportation systems (BRT as adaptive system can function on
segregated busways or on streets). It envisioned and discussed a BRTinspired redevelopment of Swedish urban regions where BRT works as a
mini metro bus system or a rapid transit system with automated super
buses. The research demonstrates that a crucial aspect of the integration
of public transportation systems is to understand the urban morphology
6
of TOD. The Licentiate Thesis created a typology of four (ideal) urban
patterns for public transportation cities and proposed the application of
this typology to transform the problematic neighbourhood types by
introducing new busways and other public transportation infrastructures.
Without the incremental transformation of all neighbourhood types and
the interconnection of all neighbourhoods in an urban region, it will be
difficult to realise progress towards the modal shift required to realise
more sustainable mobilities.
Paper 7
Based upon the typology of public transportation systems presented in
the Licentiate Thesis, Paper 7 analysed TOD or the effect of public
transportation systems on patterns of commercialisation and public space
in visual proximity to transit stops. Urban designers usually draw rings
around transit stops and arrange transit-supportive land uses within 10minute walksheds. They focus on walking distances to define service
areas for public transportation and urban growth boundaries for TOD.
This approach to TOD complements existing research by prioritising
visual proximity and viewsheds. Transit stops are the densest public
spaces in cities and they integrate the urban fabric with a combination of
public spaces and commercial activity. Paper 7 emphasizes morphological
elements such as transit stops, street spaces and building façades of the
surrounding buildings in visual proximity of transit stops.
Paper 7 proposed a methodology to analyse commercialisation and
public space patterns through viewsheds of transit stops. The hypothesis
of the study is that TOD should be designed around viewsheds rather
than walksheds. It suggests that urban design and visual proximity is
equally important to D-variables and transit-supportive land uses.
Several Swedish cases were analysed using a pattern typology of transit
stops and TOD patterns. The results reveal that TOD patterns of public
spaces in visual proximity to transit stops are very different from the
areas defined by the standard walking radii. These amoebic or elongated
shapes depend on the transit stop type and other physical settings (street
layout, commercialisation, orientation and openness of building façades
and so on). Urban designers can use this approach and methodology to
integrate transit stops in the urban form of existing neighbourhoods and
improve the conditions for travel by public transportation.
Paper 8
Paper 8 builds upon the theory of D-variables and the neighbourhood
typologies from the Licentiate Thesis to investigate the effect of urban
form in terms of Density, Diversity, land use and neighbourhood type on
travel variables (bus patronage). Land use is typically understood as a set
7
of D-variables in the study of urban form and travel behaviour. In typomorphology, land use is an underlying element in the morphological
structure of neighbourhood type. Neighbourhood type defines urban
areas that are relatively similar according to a range of attributes, such as
building types, plot sizes, street layouts and land uses. Neighbourhood
type, as nominal variable, hypothetically creates intervals for travel
variables due to morphological consistencies caused by historical
integration with specific transportation modes. The travel variables such
as modal share, travel distance, trip frequency and other parameters
would cluster around the averages for each neighbourhood type.
Paper 8 contributes with empirical evidence on the effect of urban
form on travel at the neighbourhood scale and enriches the research on
D-variables with morphological concepts such as neighbourhood type.
The results from the analysis of the effect of urban form factors on bus
patronage in typical neighbourhoods in the Swedish city of Karlstad show
that number of residents and jobs around bus stops explains one-third of
the variation of bus patronage. This confirms previous studies on Density
in Sweden. Meanwhile, the Diversity variables show no statistical
significance.
The analysis of the neighbourhood types reveals that the travel
variables cluster in intervals as hypothesized. These insights about the
transportation performance of different neighbourhood types is
particularly important for urbanist practitioners who work with
typologies, FBCs and TOD. In addition to Density, travel patterns (in
terms of maximum and minimum modal shares) are informed by a
specific combination of urban form elements that comprise
neighbourhood type. Neighbourhood types (characterized by the urban
design of a specific historical period) arguably do not determine how
people travel, but they delimit the performance of particular
transportation systems. A house with a garage and big box shopping
malls with extensive parking lots in the suburbs precondition private
mobility, long journeys and commutes. A similar behaviour would most
probably occur in a multifamily apartment block with a garage in the
cellar, elevator to the apartment and quick exit to the expressway. Both of
these neighbourhood types would have high modal shares of automobile
travel and low modal shares of cycling and walking.
Paper 9
Paper 9 builds upon the research in the Licentiate Thesis, Paper 7, Paper
8 and other empirical research to develop mobility choices models that
can inform the integration of walking, cycling, public transportation and
private cars as it relates to carbon emissions and energy use. The mobility
choices model uses travel forecasting methodology to predict modal
8
shares based on preconditions to travel embedded in the urban form.
Paper 9 links environmental goals (including carbon neutral
transportation, energy efficient and fossil free mobility) with urban
planning, design and development practices to provide insights on the
effect of urban form on sustainable mobility. The urban form and
accessibility factors used in the mobility choices model, such as Density,
mix of residences and jobs, building setbacks, building heights, street
widths, types of sidewalks, commercial storefronts, and so on, are
commonly used in Swedish municipalities as zoning and urban design
guidelines to achieve desired urban forms.
The mobility choices model presented in Paper 9 visualizes the
integration of walking, cycling, public transportation and private cars
with modal shares, energy use and carbon emissions through heat maps.
This is a useful method to identify neighbourhoods with unsustainable
mobility patterns. The visual results are intended to inform debates on
the development of existing and new neighbourhoods that are striving to
realise sustainable development goals.
The mobility choices model is not fixed or conceived as a final
product. It implies a process of choosing and composing factors as well as
the negotiation and fine-tuning of the models and measures. It is
intended to reflect empirical knowledge and be concise and
communicative. It is a framework to communicate knowledge about the
complex link between urban form and transportation systems among
actors and stakeholders in the urban development processes to catalyse
sustainable development. The mobility choices model should be
conceived furthermore as a research agenda about how specific urban
form and accessibility factors (Density, walkable streets, flat terrain,
visual proximity to transit stops, transit stops with frequent service,
building setbacks, building heights, walking radiuses to transit stops and
so on) that are commonly used in urbanist practice can influence modal
shares.
Organisation of the Kappa
The Kappa has five sections. This introductory section presented the
problem formulation and RQs, research aim and a summary of the
papers. The Background and Theoretical Framework section defines key
concepts and theories including sustainable mobility and multimodality,
urban morphology, the effect of urban form on travel and travel
forecasting. The Methodology presents a set of methods from urban
morphology to analyse the effect of (public) transportation systems on
cities as well as the methodology that informs the mobility choices model
to forecast modal shares based on urban form and accessibility factors.
9
The Results and Discussion section summarizes the research findings and
explicitly addresses the RQs. The final section presents the overarching
conclusions of the Doctoral Thesis with reflections on the findings and
RQs and suggestions for future research. After the References section,
there is a critical glossary that includes definitions of key terms.
10
BACKGROUND AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This section introduces key concepts about cities and sustainable
mobility. The first subsection defines sustainable mobility, while the
second subsection focuses on urban morphology as a theoretical
framework to analyse cities. The third section presents theories to
interpret travel behaviour with an emphasis on environmental perception
and embedded affordances in urban form. The fourth section discusses
sustainable mobility indicators as morphological information in urbanist
practices and presents examples of ideal cities (accessibility ranges and
urban models of historical transportation morphogenesis in cities) as
background for the mobility choices model.
Sustainable mobility as a paradigm
Sustainable development is a concept without a blueprint (UN, 1987).
Likewise, there is no universally accepted definition or predefined
indicators for sustainable cities or mobility (Hilty, 2006; Gullberg, et al,
2007; Höjer et al., 2011; Turcu, 2013; 2018; Kramers et al., 2013; 2014;
Kramers, 2014). Sustainable mobility is a new paradigm to understand
the complex links between transportation systems and cities, mobility
and society (Cervero, 1996; Marshall & Banister, 2000; Marshall, 2001;
Marshall, 2005a; Banister, 2008; Shoup, 2011; Rode et al., 2017). In the
new paradigm, the emphasis is on accessibility and promoting access with
multiple sustainable mobility choices (creating a pyramid with the
pedestrian on the top) by optimizing the co-dependence of urban form
and transportation systems (Marshall, 2001; 2005b; Banister, 2008;
Rode et al., 2017). Minimizing wasted travel time is more important than
saving time (Cervero, 1996; Shoup, 2011). The new studies on sustainable
mobility include experiences while traveling (e.g. use of time, Lyons &
Urry, 2005) and broader perspective on social life, transportation systems
and mobility cultures (Sheller & Urry, 2006).
Accessibility is the ability to reach destinations (Shoup, 2011, p.93).
Accessibility is a key concept in the sustainable mobility paradigm (these
terms are synonymous in Cervero, 1996). However, accessibility precedes
the concept of sustainable mobility and it can be conceptualized from
different perspectives (Geurs & Van Wee, 2004; Curtis & Scheurer, 2010).
Accessibility is usually defined as a potential for interaction between
places (Hansen, 1959) or ‘the extent to which Land Use and
Transportation (LUT) systems enable (groups of) individuals to reach
activities or destinations by means of a (combination of) transportation
mode(s)’ (Geurs & Van Wee; 2004, p.128). In effect, accessibility puts the
Land Use-Transportation interaction (LUTi) in motion. There are much
research on accessibility definitions and metrics (Hansen, 1959; Koenig,
11
1980; Brotchie, 1984; Wegener, 1994; 2004; 2014; Brotchie et al., 1995;
1996; Handy & Niemeier, 1997; Talen & Anselin, 1998; Levine, 1998; Van
Wee, 2002; 2011; 2016; Levine & Garb, 2002; Talen, 2003; Geurs & Van
Wee, 2004; Páez et al., 2012; Grengs et al., 2010; Levine et al., 2012;
Olaru & Curtis, 2015; Rode et al, 2017). In this Doctoral Thesis,
accessibility measures are included in a set of sustainable mobility
indicators. The research combines aspects of accessibility and influences
on urban form in the broader context of technological change (Brotchie,
1984; Brotchie et al., 1995; 1996), historical integration of transportation
systems in cities (referred to as transportation morphogenesis in Vance,
1977; 1990a; 1990b), envisioning cities (Marshall, 2001; Banister, 2008;
Rode et al, 2017) and considering mobility cultures (Urry, 2007).
Two complementary sustainable mobility approaches focus
specifically on urban form. Many other approaches consider technical
solution as green vehicles or shift to telecommuting (Figure 3). The first
approach emphasizes proximity as a way to achieve accessibility, whereas
the second approach argues for maintaining the level of mobility while
improving transportation efficiency (Levine et al., 2012). In the first
approach, it is necessary to reduce travel overall by decreasing the
distance of trips (Ringenson et al., 2018). Proximity to destinations would
replace a portion of automobile trips with walking and cycling,
subsequently decreasing the negative environmental impacts of
automobile use. The second approach does not attempt to reduce the
distance of trips, but rather to shift mobility from the private automobile
to public transportation. The European Commission (EC) seeks to break
the dependence on oil without compromising mobility in European cities.
The ambition is to create integrated, multimodal transportation systems
where the greatest number of passengers is carried jointly to their
respective destinations by the most efficient combination of modes (EC,
2011). Enabling a wide range of mobility choices would facilitates the shift
towards walking, cycling and public transportation, thus improving
energy efficiency and decreasing carbon emissions.
The Doctoral Thesis emphasises multimodality, mobility choices and
a modal shift from private automobiles towards public transportation as
key aspects of sustainable mobility. Multimodality is defined as the ability
to travel around cities with multiple transportation modes. The analysis
focuses on mobility choices and the integration of multiple transportation
systems in cities. This includes experiments, social evaluation and
acceptance of transportation technologies, visioning and development of
ideal urban forms (neighbourhoods) with a particular mix of
transportation systems, construction of transportation infrastructures
and establishment of mobility cultures in these communities (Vance,
12
1977; 1990a; 1990b). Transportation systems are entangled in urban
visions that involve experimentation and emergence of prototypes of
buildings and neighbourhoods. These urban patterns have profound
effects on the development of cities, particularly during periods of rapid
development. The garden suburbs in the 19th century could not function
without railway stations and public transportation and commuting by
public trains produced a unique mobility culture (Schivelbusch, 2014
[1977]). A house with a garage encourages urban development that
favours automobility as a mobility culture (Sheller & Urry, 2001; Urry,
2004; Dennis & Urry, 2009).
Figure 3: Sustainable mobility approaches in the ‘Brotchie triangle’ (see
Brotchie, 1984; Brotchie at al., 1996). This Doctoral Thesis emphasizes
the modal shift approach by transformation of existing cities and
introducing public transportation systems.
Urban morphology and the analysis of cities
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe coined the term morphology in the 1817
book Zur Naturwissenschaft überhaupt, besonders zur Morphologie
(translated On Natural Science in General, Morphology in Particular).
Goethe wrote that is important to postulate a prototype against which all
forms could be compared as to points of agreement or divergence. It is an
archetypal form, in essence, the concept or idea of the form (Goethe, 1988
[1817]). Goethe furthermore discussed morphogenesis and
13
metamorphosis, the processes of emergence of form and transformation.
Accordingly, urban morphologists study the physical elements and
structure of cities; the physiognomy and character of their buildings,
streets or neighbourhoods; processes of formation and transformation;
evolution of cities or neighbourhoods; dynamics of urban change and the
underlying causes (Kropf, 1996; 2014; 2018; Moudon, 1997; Marshall,
2008; Batty & Marshall, 2009; 2017; Batty, 2005; 2013).
Morphology is a science about the essence of form (Goethe, 1988
[1817]; Steadman, 1979; 2014; Marshall & Çalişkan, 2011). Urban
morphology finds its antecedents in philosophers of metaphysics.
Aristotle reviews Heraclitean, Platonist and Pythagorean traditions in
Methaphysics and discusses understanding of ideas that persist in urban
morphology today. Aristotle argues that the knowledge and
understanding of form derives from observation and logic, in opposition
to Plato’s world of timeless unchangeable ideas (perfect transcendental
forms) and physical reality as emanating from the ideal transcendental
world. Furthermore, Aristotle describes the Pythagorean philosophy of a
world understood through numbers and mathematics. Philolaus of
Croton (c. 470-385 BC), a follower of Pythagoras, writes:
‘All things that are known have a number. For it is not possible that
anything whatsoever be understood or known without this’ (Philolaus &
Huffman, 1993, p.172).
Based upon the metaphysical perspective, the morphological approaches
(discussed by Moudon, 1992; 1994; 1997; Gauthier & Gilliland, 2006;
Kropf, 2009; 2018; Oliveira, 2016) can be grouped into two major
traditions. Typo-morphology defines urban form through types and
patterns (including their structure, elements and hierarchies) in the
tradition of Aristotelian and Platonic metaphysics. Types and patterns are
ideas (abstractions and theoretical constructs) about houses, buildings,
streets, cities and so on produced through observation (detached,
terraced, semi-detached house, etc.). Types serve as metaphysical ideas,
whereas patterns are practically applicable ideas used to solve urban
problems (Alexander et al., 1977; Alexander, 1979). There is a thin line
between Aristotelian and Platonist metaphysics in typo-morphology.
Giancarlo Cataldi (2003, p.24) cites Aristotle’s Methaphysics and states:
‘If we analyse the building process of a house, we see that the builder has the
form of the house in mind; he knows what houses are all about. To a certain
extent, houses originate from houses: from something intangible (their
concept) that generates something.’
For Aldo Rossi (1982 [1966]), architecture and urbanism are eternal
disciplines, outside of time, creating buildings and urban forms that have
14
an independent existence, following Platonic ideals. They derive not only
from observations (Aristotelian categories), but also from transcendental
realms of creative thought (see Lynch, 1981, p.66).
Urban analytics, in contrast to typo-morphology, has roots in
Pythagorean metaphysics of understanding the world in terms of
mathematical concepts and abstractions. It also acknowledges the
Heraclitean philosophy of dynamics, a continuous state of flux
(Aristotelian and Platonic ideas are timeless and absolute truths). Urban
analytics is also strongly informed by pragmatism and analytical
philosophy. Pragmatists William James and Charles Sanders Peirce in the
19th century and analytical philosophers such as Bertrand Russell, Alfred
North Whitehead and Ludwig Wittgenstein in the 20th century combined
Aristotelian categories and the Pythagorean mathematical understanding
of the world with practicality. Urban analysts inspired by these
philosophic traditions draw on complexity theory to build mathematical
models and symbolic representations of the structure of cities and their
dynamics (Batty, 1976; 2005; 2013). They also acknowledge the
difficulties in modelling cities due to their continuous state of flux,
occurrence of random events in cities and complexity of agent
interactions (Batty & Marshall, 2012; Batty, 2017; 2018).
The methodologies in the Licentiate Thesis and Paper 7 build upon
the Aristotelian (and Goethian) tradition in typo-morphology, developing
typologies and using abstractions to conceptualise integration of public
transportation with cities and to present ideal patterns of public
transportation in cities. Paper 8 juxtaposes the two philosophical
approaches, Aristotelian and Pythagorean, to analyse urban form
variables (including categorical neighbourhood types) and their
influences on travel (public transportation patronage/modal share).
Paper 9 uses mathematical formulations from urban analytics
(Pythagorean metaphysics) to model the effect of urban form on travel
variables and to forecast modal shares based on urban form and
accessibility variables and urban form elements from typo-morphology.
Spaces and flows (morphological structure and
representations)
Cities today are conceived ‘as extraordinary agglomeration of flows’ (Ash
& Thrift 2002, p.42). They are spaces of flows, an assemblage of fixed
spaces, flows and networks of relations (Castells, 1996), where locations
and spaces anchor interactions (Batty, 2013). The structure of urban
elements of spaces and flows (Lynch & Rodwin, 1959; Lynch, 1960; 1981;
McLouglin, 1969; Batty, 1976; 2005; 2013) is critical for understanding
morphological analyses of cities (Licentiate Thesis, Paper 7 and Paper 8)
and for developing mobility choices models to forecast modal shares
15
based on urban form and accessibility factors (Paper 9).
To represent and analyse cities, This Doctoral Thesis combines
research on accessibility and urban analytics with typo-morphological
conceptualisations with. Kevin Lynch (1981) presents a matrix of adapted
spaces and flow facilities (Lynch & Rodwin, 1959, expanded in
McLoughlin, 1969 as channels and spaces, communications and
activities) that combines accessibility and urban form aspects. Within
urban analytics, there is a substantial literature on accessibility and Land
Use-Transportation interaction (LUTi) (Hansen, 1958; Wachs &
Kumagai, 1973; Koenig, 1980; Brotchie 1984; Wegener, 1994; 1996;
2004; 2014; Brotchie et al., 1996; Talen & Anselin, 1998; Van Wee, 2002;
2011; 2016; Geurs & Van Wee, 2004). The typo-morphologists assume a
morphological structure of streets, plots and buildings and their related
open spaces (Conzen 1960; Rossi, 1982 [1966]; Moudon, 1997;
Whitehand, 2001; Scheer, 2010; 2016; Kropf, 2011; 2018; Birkhamshaw
& Whitehand, 2012). This hierarchical morphological structure can be
analysed from the top or as street spaces, plots and buildings that are
oriented and scaled to the street (Caniggia & Maffei, 2001 [1977]). Karl
Kropf (2011; 2018) combined these conceptualisations into a generic
morphological structure (Figure 4A). This morphological structure was
modified for the analyses in this Doctoral Thesis (Figure 4C). Firstly,
edges between the building, plots and the street were added as elements
(building façades are the urban form factor in Paper 9). Jane Jacobs
(1960) consider the interaction between the street and building as an
important morphological element (Caniggia & Maffei, 2001 [1979]; Kropf,
2011; also discuss differences in orientation of the building façades in the
city block in respect to the routes). Secondly, the morphological structure
is interpreted within a framework of environmental perception that
structures the preconditions to travel. Environmental psychologists
recognize layers of nested environments (Gifford, 2014). The operational
environment defines the space where people move and work. It is a
movement space. The perceptual environment is the space where people
are directly conscious and to which they give symbolic meaning. In the
behavioural environment, people are not only aware but also perform
behavioural response (Rapoport, 1977). Figure 4B show the perceptual
hierarchy of environments and Figure 4C positions the urban form
elements in the hierarchy of perceived environments. The visual
experience includes a sequence of viewpoints (described as serial vision in
Cullen, 1960; 1967) as centres of behavioural environments. The route as
a sequence of viewpoints is the element of urban flow that becomes fixed
in urban space (Figure 4D).
16
Figure 4: Conceptual model of perceived environment and generic
morphological structure. The environment is perceived as a sequence of
urban spaces/behavioural environments.
The conceptual model of Figure 4 is used to differentiate and organize
urban form and accessibility factors in Paper 9. Furthermore, the
conceptual model of the behavioural environment defines visual
17
proximity in Paper 7 and Paper 9 as the behavioural environment. To
represent and analyse sequences of urban space while travelling, Paper 7
proposes a model involving a skewed 3D perspective (Figure 4E). This
‘envelope view’ of urban space allows for the analysis of elements in street
space and architectural elements on the building façade (Caniggia &
Maffei, 2001 [1979]; Krier, 1983).
The morphological structure proposed by Gianfranco Caniggia and
Gian Luigi Maffei (2001 [1977]) furthermore includes polarities. Cites
create a hierarchy of centres, anti-centres and transportation axes at a
scale of the city/urban region. Meanwhile, transportation systems
produce a hierarchy of nodes and axes. These polarities of centres and
their underlying nodes and corridors, are usually represented with three
classic urban models of concentric rings, sectors and multiple nuclei
(Harris & Ullman, 1945; Ehlers, 2011). These urban models are applied in
this Doctoral Thesis to analyse the effect of transportation systems at the
regional scale. The concentric rings and sector models are derived from
economics and the works of Johann Heinrich Von Thünen (1966 [1826],
on travel distances) and Homer Hoyt (1933; 1939, on development
cycles). The model of multiple nuclei (Harris & Ullman, 1945) fuses
Walter Christaller’s (1966, [1933]), the theory of the hierarchical structure
of cities (Ullman, 1941) and the representation of cities as ‘mosaics of
small worlds’ (cited in Park, 1925, p.40; Burgess, 1925) are of particular
importance. Von Thünen’s model of concentric rings reflects the
historical epoch of walking and coaches. The sector model emerged in the
beginning of the 20th century when public transportation infrastructures
fuelled the rapid development of cities and their outward expansion via
corridors. Hoyt (1939) illustrates sectors as pieces of a pie, where the pie
symbolizes the city and sector elongation. The multiple nuclei model
(Harris & Ullman, 1945) shows the emergence of leapfrog development
and scattered suburbanisation from the 1940s inwards inspired by
increased use and flexibility of the automobile. Figure 5 illustrates
development of cities along different transportation systems on a regional
scale in a context of development cycles (as applied in Paper 3 in the
Licentiate Thesis).
18
Figure 5: Cognitive representations of transportation systems and the
evolution of cities through development cycles (applied in the Licentiate
Thesis to analyse effect of transportation systems at the regional scale).
Development cycles and morphogenesis in cities
Cyclical changes and historical periods are crucial concepts in urban
morphology. Cities experience random development cycles of urban
growth and refurbishment followed by recensions and inactivity (Hoyt,
1933; 1939; Lewis, 1965; Whitehand, 1977; 1987; Barras, 2009;
Whitehand & Gu 2017). The duration of these urban development cycles
can depend on the lifespan of buildings and infrastructures (Barras,
2009), but also on burgage cycles, or changes of generations of tenants
(Conzen, 1960). Industrial innovations, new technologies and business
cycles produce capital that triggers cycles of urban growth and decay,
development and redevelopment (Barras, 2009). Henri Lefebvre (1996
[1968]; 2003 [1970]) further develops the cyclical changes by analysing
19
the process of industrialisation and urbanisation. He examines the
evolution from the zero point (the non-existent city and the complete
predominance of agrarian life) to fully realised urbanisation and the
absorption of the countryside by the city and the total dominance of
industrial production (Lefebvre, 1996 [1968]). Edward Soja (1989)
follows on Lefebvre’s analytical tradition to illustrate the American
metropolis from patterns of the mercantile city and the competitive
industrial city to the corporate monopoly city and the state-managed
Fordist city (modern city). Stephen Graham and Simon Marvin (1996)
expand this model by defining the post-Fordist global metropolis
(postmodern city). The Licentiate Thesis is based upon research about
cyclical changes in Swedish urbanisation, changes in economy and society
that reflect on the emergence and spread of neighbourhood types in
Swedish cities (Engström et al. 1988; Engström & Legeby, 2001;
Engström, 2008; 2018).
The development cycles in urban morphogenesis manifest themselves
through typologies of buildings, streets, neighbourhoods, and so on.
Figure 6 illustrates a theoretical framework to classify neighbourhood
types used in the Licentiate Thesis, Paper 7 and Paper 8. A
neighbourhood type characterizes an area of a city that is relatively
homogeneous and exhibits a range of attributes such as age and style of
development, building and street types (Stead & Marshall, 2001).
Buildings and neighbourhoods that emerge during major building booms
display similar architectural styles and urban patterns. They also embed
transportation infrastructures that are dominant for the historical period
(Whitehand, 2001; Marshall, 2005a). The neighbourhoods have a
hierarchical morphological structure (Figure 6A and 6B reflect upon and
illustrate Figure 4C). The historical periods (pre-industrial,
industrialisation, modern and postmodern city) also correspond with
transportation eras dominated by walking, public transportation, private
mobility and multimodality (Figure 6C). The neighbourhoods are also
positioned in specific corners of the ‘Brotchie triangle’ that describes
processes of centralisation and decentralisation (Figure 2).
20
Figure 6: Morphogenesis and cyclical changes shown as neighbourhood
types in a context of historical emergence of transportation systems (used
to create typologies in the Licentiate Thesis, Paper 7 and Paper 8)
The urban forms that are produced through experimentation and the
creation of prototypes of buildings and neighbourhoods (processes of
morphogenesis) emerge as social constructs with embedded messages.
The physical spaces, even unplanned urban forms, embed symbolic
meaning in cities that is constructed socially and mentally (Lefebvre, 1991
[1974]; Soja 1989; 1996). Through societal interpretation, historic and
21
newly developed neighbourhoods achieve unique social meaning and
status as neighbourhood types. Individuals tend to look for a typical
dream house and neighbourhood (e.g., a detached house in a forest, an
apartment in downtown, and so on) when they are searching for a new
residence. The process of choosing residences and favourite mobilites is
called self-selection (Fischer, 1982; in a context of transportation and
residential self-selection see Kitamura et al., 1997; Cervero, & Duncan,
2002; Cervero, 2007; Van Wee, 2009; Naess, 2009; Cao et al., 2009).
Through self-selection, the neighbourhood type indirectly incorporates
socioeconomic variables due to social groupings (Figure 7A). An
individual’s taste for housing inspires social mobility and grouping
(Bourdieu, 1979). Sociologists have described these social groupings as
subcultures (Fischer, 1976, 1984, 1996) and housing classes (Rex &
Moore, 1969; Rex, 1971).
Figure 7: Neighbourhood types link physical form with social constructs,
but also with lifestyles, behaviour and mobility (Stojanovski, 2018a;
illustrated by Rådberg, 1988; Rådberg & Friberg; 1996)
Alexander (1979) argues that urban patterns consist of two layers:
patterns of events determined by culture and physical spaces where
human activities happen. Patterns of events always interlock with certain
pattern of physical space. Likewise, the physical elements of
neighbourhoods (parking standards, street layouts, configuration of
buildings, building heights, street widths, and so on) precondition
lifestyles and behaviour, including mobility (Figure 7A). Based on this,
Figure 7B illustrates how neighbourhood types (characterized by urban
22
design of specific historical period) delimit the performance of different
transportation systems. The urban form variables and travel variables
cluster in intervals (the urban form variable intervals were illustrated by
Rådberg, 1988; Rådberg & Friberg; 1996; Pont & Haupt, 2007; whereas
Engström et al., 1988; argue that neighbourhood types are
socioeconomically similar). The effect of urban form on travel behaviour
is indirect. Every residence includes hints about travel alternatives and
thus, residential choice indirectly involves mobility choice.
Morphological analyses and information in a larger framework
of urbanism
Morphological information can catalyse urbanist practices that support
sustainable development. In this context, urbanism has two spheres
(Figure 8A): a scientific sphere that is reflective/theoretical and a political
sphere that is active/practical (Turner, 1976). Urban change is generated
in the political sphere through administration or legislation or by
developers (Lefebvre, 1996 [1968]) and is inspired by new information
and theories such as pursuit of sustainable mobility, multimodality and
design for diverse mobility choices. The Licentiate Thesis, Paper 7 and
Paper 8 are positioned in the scientific sphere, whereas Paper 9 creates a
bridge between the scientific sphere and the political sphere.
Figure 8: The spheres of urbanism and elements of urban change
(informing urbanist practice through morphological analyses)
Urban morphology is situated in the scientific sphere, but needs to
consider the larger framework of urbanism to influence the political
sphere. Urbanism has a broader scope and incorporates urban planning
23
and design, urban theory and analysis, processes of urbanisation and
urban living. It continuously splinters and evolves with perpetual
critiques of the theoretical formulations of cities, the advocacy of
superstar architects and master urban designers, and the powers of
bureaucracy. A mix of tendencies coexist in urbanism. Scientific urbanism
focuses on systems while neglecting the human scale. Meanwhile,
architects, artists and philosophers aim to build cities that are human in
scale, even though the human scale has grown beyond their grasp
(Lefebvre, 1996 [1968]). There are fundamental tensions between
understanding cities as processes or as forms. Urban planners focus on
processes, administration and control, whereas architects and urban
designers emphasize good urban forms (adapted from Yiftachel, 1989).
Planning theorists and practitioners (Friedman, 1987; 2017; Healey,
1992; Innes, 1995; 1998; 2004; 2017; Innes & Booher, 1999; Hoch, 2002;
2009; Rydin, 2007) discuss action and the pursuit of consensual truths (a
pragmatic understanding of the world by William James and Charles
Sanders Peirce). This collides and coexist with philosophic reflections on
absolute transcendental forms and ideal designs (Aristotle’s categories
and Plato’s forms) of morphological theorists and urban designers
(Conzen, 1960; Lynch, 1960; Cullen, 1961; 1967; Alexander et al., 1977;
1987; Alexander, 1979; Krier, 1979; 1983; Krier, 1984; 2009; Moudon,
1992; 1994; 1997; Kropf, 1996; 2011; 2018; Marshall, 2005a; 2011;
Scheer, 2010).
The Doctoral Thesis adopts a perspective of morphologically
informed urbanism (Figure 8B) to emphasise the importance of
morphological information to urban planning, design and development
practices (Samuels, 1990; 1999; 2008; McGlynn & Samuels, 2000; Hall,
2007; 2008; Marshall & Caliskan, 2011; Hall & Sanders, 2011; Sanders &
Woodward, 2015; Sanders & Baker, 2016). Morphologically informed
urbanism focusses on processes of urban morphogenesis and incremental
processes of realising good urban forms as driven by urban visions rather
than prescribing good forms based on blueprints of idealized urban
designs (Scheer, 2010). Urban visions, urban elements and typologies
exist within the broader dynamics of continuous development cycles.
Building is a process that is continually going on. It does not begin here with
a preformed plan and end there with a finished artefact (Ingold, 2000,
p.188)
Cities are always under construction and development cycles occur
randomly often being driven by urban visions. Envisioning cities is a
crucial aspect of the sustainable mobility paradigm (Marshall, 2001;
Banister, 2008). Today, urban visions are based on many possible
24
combinations of transportation infrastructures and urban forms from
walkable, compact public transportation-supportive cities to sprawling
car-oriented cities (Rode et al., 2017). Because cities are spaces of flows
(Castells, 1996, Ash & Thrift, 2002) urban visions need to be appended
with analyses about future mobility patterns to influence sustainable
development.
Modelling travel behaviour and urban form
Transportation engineers and planners model travel behaviour and
produce forecasts about future travel demand (such as number of trips,
frequency, modal shift, and so on) during a given period of time (rush
hour, daily, weekly or annual travel) in terms of a set of explanatory
variables (Webster & Bly, 1980; Balcombe, et al., 2004). These
explanatory variables include economic variables, transportation systems
variables and urban form factors. The models can be disaggregated
(focusing on individuals or households) or aggregated (analysing zones)
(Handy, 1996).
This Doctoral Thesis applies simple aggregated models to analyse the
effect of urban form on public transportation demand at regional and
neighbourhood scales (Licentiate Thesis and Paper 8). The theoretical
starting point is the research on D-variables (Cervero, 1989; Cervero &
Kockelman, 1997, Cervero et al., 2009, Ewing & Cervero, 2010; 2017) and
earlier studies on the effect of urban form on public transportation
(Pushkarev & Zupan, 1977; in a Swedish context, Homberg, 1972; 1975;
2013; Brynielsson, 1976; Persson, 2008; Westford, 2010; Tornberg &
Eriksson, 2012). This research tradition illustrates an interrelationship
triangle between urban form, transportation systems (focusing
predominantly on transit) and travel behaviour (Figure 9A) that is used to
analyse the effect of urban form variables on public transportation use.
The relationship between urban form variables (Density and Diversity)
and public transportation performance is analysed in Paper 8 through a
place-node model. The place-node model (Bertolini, 1996; 1999; 2017)
visualizes the direct relationship between travel variables and urban form
factors (usually D-variables) on a chart with node and place axes. The
place generates demand that result in traffic flow (modal split, number of
journeys generated, and so on). X-axis represents place factors, whereas
the y-axis represents transportation performance/travel demand
variables (modal split, number of journeys generated, and so on). In the
context of public transportation, the service area of the transit stop (the
walkshed) defines the place. The place variables are a complex of Dvariables (Chorus & Bertolini, 2011). These simplified analyses and
models are situated in a wider theoretical framework of urban form and
travel behaviour. Modelling travel behaviour and mobility choices is
25
complex because it includes agent dynamics that are influenced by the
unique personal characteristics of travellers. The link between urban form
and travel behaviour can be understood as a three-dimensional pyramid
of interrelationship with personal characteristics on the top (Figure 9B).
Figure 9: Three conceptual frameworks to analyse the effect of urban
form on travel behaviour in a context of public transportation (the link
between urban form and public transportation performance as placenode model is analysed in Paper 8)
The interrelationship pyramid (Figure 9B) illustrates the hidden
interrelationships between (typology of) neighbourhoods and personal
characteristics. Through self-selection, the neighbourhood type
incorporates a range of physical (urban form) variables and indirectly
socioeconomic and demographic variables as a consequence of social
grouping and housing class formation (Figure 7). Claude Fischer (1975;
26
1984; 1995) discusses subcultures with social and physical settings. The
physical, social and individual (personal characteristics) intertwine as
social constructs of neighbourhood types (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974]; Soja,
1989; 1996; Gauthier, 2005). In addition, neighbourhoods embed
affordances (Gibson, 1977, 1986) that individuals recognize and
apprehend (the previous section about morphogenesis describes the
emergence of typical neighbourhoods with embedded mobility choices).
Ultimately, the interrelationship pyramid illustrates the location of the
place-node model used to analyse the effect of urban form variables in
Paper 8.
The following two subsections review concepts and literature on the
effect of urban form (land use) on travel behaviour. The first subsection
focuses on methods to analyse land uses (described as D-variables) and
travel demand. These methods are applied in Paper 8. The second
subsection presents a conceptual model to analyse travel as
environmental perception and preconditions to travel. This model is used
to analyse urban spaces in Paper 7 and to develop the methodology in
Paper 9.
The effect of land use variables on travel and forecasting
travel
Land use refers to all aspects of the built environment: development
patterns, density, mix of activities and land uses, levels of jobs-housing
balance, physical design, design features and demographic characteristics
(Cervero, 1989; 1991). In most land use-travel studies, a travel variable is
regressed on explanatory variables that include personal characteristics of
the travellers and measures of land use (Boarnet, 2011). In this type of
study, a set of D-variables defines land use: Density, Diversity, Design,
Distance to transit, Destination accessibility, Demand management and
Demographics (Cervero, 1989; Cervero & Kockelman, 1997; Ewing &
Cervero, 2001; 2010; 2017; Cervero et al., 2009).
All of the land use or D-variables are typically measured using census
data or data derived from GIS. The literature usually considers a
neighbourhood scale (a quarter-mile or half-mile radius as described in
the place-node model) and the magnitude of the relationships expressed
as elasticities (Boarnet, 2011). Empirical evidence shows that D-variables
are inelastic with respect to average travelled distances and modal shares.
The elasticities for Density, Diversity and Design (as density of
intersection) are 0.01-0.07 for modal shares of transit and 0.04-0.07 for
walking. The Diversity variables have elasticity of 0.15-0.25 for transit
and 0.12 for walking. The Design variables (as density of intersection)
have the highest elasticity with 0.39 for transit and 0.23-0.29 for walking.
However, the combined effect of several D-variables is assumed to have a
27
profound effect on travel (Ewing & Cervero, 2010). This conclusion
triggered a critical debate about methodologies (Boarnet, 2011) and
interpretations (Stevens, 2017; Ewing & Cervero, 2017). However,
empirical evidence in Swedish travel surveys over the last few decades
consistently shows that on aggregate the downtowns and urban cores of
even the smallest cities decrease the modal share of car traffic and
average trip length by roughly half. Density as variable explains one third
of the variation in public transportation demand (Holmberg, 2013). The
effect of Density on travel variables is recognized in other European
countries (Stead & Marshall, 2001; Susilo & Maat, 2007; Susilo & Stead,
2009; Naess, 2006; 2011; 2012). The research of the effect of land use
variables on travel (Cervero, 1989; 1991; Bertolini, 1996; 1999; 2017;
Cervero & Kockelman, 1997; Crane, 1996a; 2000; Ewing & Cervero, 2001;
2010; 2017; Boarnet & Crane, 2001; Cervero et al., 2009; Boarnet, 2011;
Chorus & Bertolini, 2011, Tornberg, & Eriksson, 2012; Papa & Bertolini,
2015) is used to frame the methodology in Paper 8. Paper 8 also
contributes to this body of knowledge with empirical evidence from
Swedish neighbourhoods.
Conversely, land uses variables can be used to forecast travel. Travel
forecasting utilises trip generation models from specific land uses or Dvariables (ITE, 2012; Ewing, et al., 2013; Weinberger, et al., 2015;
Trafikverket 2011). Trip generation models are based on empirical
research on the effect of land uses on travel patterns (number of
generated trips or modal shares). The studies of the effect of hundreds of
land uses are compiled and continuously updated in the Trip Generation
Manual (ITE, 2012). Other scholars have also used D-variables to
estimate trip generation rates (Ewing, et al., 2013; Weinberger, et al.,
2015). In Paper 9, the mobility choices model used to predict modal
shares, carbon emissions and energy use in transportation is not based on
land uses but on a set of urban form and accessibility factors including Dvariables.
Environmental perception of urban form and travel behaviour
In a broader perspective, behaviour can be understood as an outcome of
personal characteristics and environmental perception (Lewin, 1935).
Personal characteristics include a set of personality traits, ego, habits,
preferences, attitudes, commitments, and so on. (Metcalfe & Dolan, 2012;
Dolan et al., 2012). Environmental perception involves the interpretation
of sensory information from physical and social surroundings, as well as
the emotional responses they provoke (about perceptual worlds see
Uexküll, 2010 [1934]; Lewin, 1935, Ingold, 2000). Herbert Simon (1996
[1969]) argues that the complexity of behaviour is largely a reflection of
the complexity of the environment in which individuals find themselves.
28
The tendency is to simplify travel behaviour and habitually choose what
works and is pleasing (Gärling et al., 2001; Gärling & Axhausen, 2003;
Schwanen et al., 2012).
Figure 10: Morphological/perceptual scales of travel behaviour based on
perceptual modalities of visual proximity and cognitive representation
The link between urban form and travel behaviour includes
environmental preconditions to travel and environmental perception that
influences individuals (Figure 10A). The environmental preconditions to
29
travel are affordances. Affordances represent what urban environments
offer to the observer and can be positive as well as negative (Gibson, 1977;
1986). Environmental psychologists recognize layers of nested
environments within physical space (Gifford, 2017). The operational
environment is the space where people move and work. People are
directly conscious and give symbolic meaning to their perceptual
environment. In the behavioural environment, people are not only aware
but also produce behavioural responses (Rapoport, 1977). Affordances
exist within perceptual modalities (perceptual/behavioural
environments) and the cognitive understanding of urban regions
(operational environments) as accessibility ranges. Vision dominates
perceptual modalities and the range of clear visual acuity is roughly 100–
200 meters (Gibson, 1950; 1977; 1986; Hall, 1959; 1966; Gehl, 1987;
2010). Benches, bus stops, subway exits, kiosks, sidewalks, and other
urban elements within 100-200 meters are affordances in visual
proximity. Figure 10B illustrates how an individual who is deciding to
drive, walk, cycle or use public transportation is influenced by
affordances in his or her visual proximity. The urban elements within
visual proximity (perceptual/behavioural environments) can prioritize
some transportation modes while hindering others. A parking lot that
obscures a bus stop affects travel behaviour. Likewise, the presence of
bike lanes or bus stops in visual proximity serves as a reminder to
individuals that there are sustainable travel alternatives to the private
automobile. The operational environments or mobility spaces are the
accessibility ranges (Figure 10C).
Paper 7 analyses the effect of commercialisation and the creation of
public spaces in visual proximity to transit stops (Figure 10B). Paper 9
uses the theoretical framework in Figure 10 to structure urban form and
accessibility factors as environmental preconditions to travel. Each
particular transportation mode has a combination of urban form and
accessibility factors that supports its mobility (density, building heights,
street widths, design of sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stops and so on). These
factors can be used to analyse the integration with different
transportation modes and to forecast modal shares. Forecasts for modal
shares based on urban form and accessibility factors would be
approximated, because they are only influenced by environmental
preconditions to travel. The actual modal split is formed by individual
preferences of travellers (Figure 10) that are manifested in reality market
segments or mobility classes (Anable, 2005; Prillwitz and Barr, 2011;
Henriksson et al., 2011; Ton et al., 2019). The term ‘mobility class’ defines
groups of individuals with strong preferences to specific transportation
modes (Figure 11). Flâneurs favour walking, cycling advocates prioritise
30
bikes, bus enthusiasts and train spotters prefer transit and dedicated
motorists drive everywhere. Green travellers prefer walking, cycling and
public transportation to the private car while rational agents have equal
preference to all transportation modes. In reality, individuals are not
always dedicated to a single transportation mode. Instead, they
simultaneously embody the flâneur, the cyclist, the motorist, the transit
nerd and so on. Social groupings and preferences change with new
technological trends of electrification, automation and sharing.
Technological trends influence urban form, centralisation and
decentralisation of cities (for an effect on urban form see Figure 2).
Figure 11: Mobility subcultures and their interactions.
Established mobility cultures in cities skews the modal shares forecast
towards socially preferred transportation mode despite integration with
other transportation modes. Individuals in car-oriented societies neglect
walkable or transit-supportive environments and vice versa, public
mobility cultures boost the use of public transportation despite poor
integration of transit stops.
Informing sustainable mobility
Based upon the previous sections on urban morphology, analysing the
effect of urban form on travel and travel forecasting, Paper 9 proposes a
mobility choices model that informs mobility choices and integration with
walking, cycling, public transportation and private car and calculates
modal shares, carbon emissions and energy in transportation.
31
The research on indicators (Innes, 1990; Bell & Morse, 1999; 2019;
Innes & Booher, 2000; 2010) and sustainable assessments (Finnveden &
Moberg, 2005; Haapio & Viitaniemi, 2008; Haapio, 2012; Sharifi &
Murayama, 2013; Singh, et al., 2013; Turcu, 2013; 2018; Wangel, et al.,
2016) provides a theoretical background for the mobility choices model.
The indicators provide information about problems and solutions (that
are often entangled, Rittel & Webber, 1973). Their scope ranges from
formulating and assessing broad societal trends to monitoring the status
of particular problems. Their designs vary from reports with hundreds of
indicators to summarizing single composite, aggregated measures (Innes,
1990). Indicators influence policy during their development through a
collaborative learning process. They must be associated with a set of
possible actions, based on expert knowledge to be credible and must
address relevant practices. (Innes & Booher, 2000).
The mobility choices model includes urban form and accessibility
factors that are structured and weighted in a sustainable mobility
indicator report according to the conceptual framework in Figure 10. The
weights are used to calculate an aggregated measure, Level of Integration
(LoI) that reveals preconditions to walk, cycle, use public transportation
or drive a car. The LoIs are used to forecast overarching system indicators
such as modal shares, carbon emissions and energy in transportation.
Many Swedish municipalities and cities focus on curbing carbon
emissions (Naess et al., 2013). Swedish cities such as Stockholm and
Malmö have even more ambitious environmental programmes to become
fossil fuel free within the next 20 years (City of Malmö, 2009; City of
Stockholm, 2017). The sustainable mobility indicators furthermore link
to urban form and accessibility factors that are commonly used in
Swedish zoning and codes (for international contexts see Duany & Talen,
2002; Talen, 2002; 2009; 2013; Ben-Joseph, 2005; Walters, 2007;
Marshall, 2011). They are based on empirical knowledge about urban
form factors on travel (Pushkarev & Zupan, 1977; Newman & Kenworthy,
1989; 1999; 2015; Cervero, 1989; 1991; Crane, 1996a; 2000; Naess et al.,
1996; Bertolini, 1996; 1999; 2017; Crane & Crepeau, 1998; Cervero &
Kockelman, 1997; Ewing & Cervero, 2001; 2010; 2017; Crane & Boarnett,
2001; Naess, 2006; 2011; 2012; Cervero et al., 2009; Tornberg, &
Eriksson, 2012; Boarnet, 2011; Boarnet et al., 2011; Kenworthy, 2019).
Additionally the research on urban qualities is used in Paper 9 to develop
factors of visual proximity that are important to walkability (Southworth
& Southworth, 1973; Southworth, 2003; 2005; 2016; Carmona et al,
2002; 2003; Talen, 2003; Ewing et al., 2005; Mehta, 2008; 2019; 2014;
Ewing & Handy, 2009; Talen & Jeong, 2019; Mehta & Mahato, 2019;
Hooi & Pojani, 2019; D’Arcci, 2019; Majic & Pafka, 2019). In the end,
32
there are many sets of mobility indicators and reports from Sweden and
internationally such as the Mobility Index in Norra Djurgårdsstaden,
Stockholm (http://www.spacescape.se/project/mobilitetsindex/);
Accessibility Index of the city of Malmö (Trivector, 2014; City of Malmö,
2016); (Ranhagen et al., 2015; Olaru & Curtis, 2015; Ranhagen, 2016);
Walk Score (http://www.walkscore.com/).
The following two subsections present the background for the
sustainable mobility indicators in Paper 9. The first subsection builds
upon the previous subsection on modelling travel behaviour and presents
ideal accessibility ranges based on competition between transportation
modes and travel costs, whereas the second subsection describes ideal
cities. The accessibility ranges illustrate operational environments,
whereas the elements of the ideal cities are affordances within perceptual
environments embedded in urban forms (Figure 10).
Competitiveness between transportation modes and ideal
accessibility ranges
Economists argue that travel choices by individuals involve trade-offs
between costs in money, time, comfort, and other factors for each
journey. Individuals maximize utility or avoid disutility of travel
(McFadden, 1974; 2007; McFadden & Reid, 1975; Hensher & Johnson,
1981; Ben-Akiva & Lerman, 1985; Hensher, 2008). Urban form factors
influence travel cost by concentrating destinations in close proximity or
by changing the time that is needed to travel (Crane, 1996b; Crane &
Boarnet, 2001; Boarnet, 2011). The probability of driving in dense urban
environments is lower because the cost of time spent in traffic is high.
Competition between transportation modes and travel budgets creates
ideal accessibility ranges (based on travel cost as a trade-off between
monetary costs and time spent travelling) where it is most rational to
walk, cycle, use transit or drive. For shorter distances, it is more
economically rational to walk or bike. For longer distances, public
transportation (an aggregate of travel time, convenience and transit fare)
competes with the private automobile (parking fees and costs to drive a
car). A large parking fee deters motorists from driving and a cheaper
transit fee encourages individuals to use the bus. This economic
rationality produces optimal accessibility ranges (Figure 12) that are used
in Paper 9 as accessibility factors.
33
Figure 12: Ideal accessibility ranges (used as factors in the mobility
choices model in Paper 9) based on economic rationale behind travel
behaviour (inspired by Crane, 1996b; Boarnet & Crane 2001)
34
The accessibility ranges on Figure 12 are based on the economic theory of
travel budgets. Transportation as an economic activity cannot exceed
expenditures over a certain budget or the price of a good. A trip will be
generated only when the utility of making the trip surpasses its disutility,
such as its cost in terms of time and money (Zahavi & Talvitie, 1980).
Yacov Zahavi (1974) argues that there are fixed travel budgets defined by
the time and money that an individual is willing to spend on travel per
day. Travel surveys in the last century show that an average person
travels roughly one hour (1.1 h in Zahavi’s studies) and makes around
1000 journeys per year (Banister, 2011). Transit users spend 3-5% of their
income on transportation whereas car owners tend to spend 10-13%
(Zahavi & Talvitie, 1980; Zahavi & Ryan, 1980). Recent research on
acceptable travel times concludes that a journey of 15 minutes poses no
problems, whereas most individuals find a commuting journey of 45
minutes or more as inconvenient and tiresome (Milakis et al., 2015a;
2015b; Milakis & Van Wee, 2018).
Transportation morphogenesis and ideal cities
This subsection reviews and highlights urban experiments with ideal
cities, prototypical neighbourhoods and suburbs. The urban form
elements from these experimental neighbourhoods persist in urbanist
practices and are used in Paper 9 as sustainable mobility indicators.
The prototypes for walkable, cycling, transit and car-oriented cities
are already built. Each transportation mode has experienced an urban
morphogenesis that includes a favoured building type, neighbourhood
type and city type. The garage is inseparable from a house today just as
the railway station was a central component in the garden suburbs of the
early 20th century. Transportation technology intertwines with urban
visions through processes of morphogenesis (Vance 1977; 1990a; 1999b).
The urban morphogenesis of transportation system starts with
experimentation and prototyping, and ends with multiplication and
production. Only when a transportation technology becomes a part
prototypical building or neighbourhood that it can have an effect on the
city as a whole. A house (with a garage) is a vision that drives urban
development. The prototypical neighbourhood of Radburn in New Jersey
from the 1920a with its street pattern of cul-de-sacs and driveways (as
infrastructure for single-family houses) continues to be a common
suburban development pattern even today. The driveways subsequently
became garages and the scale of the neighbourhood changed while the
underlying morphological elements and their relationships (house to
garage, garage to driveway and driveway to motorway via access road)
remained unchanged.
35
All cities that preceded the introduction of commuter trains in the 19th
century are prototypes of the walkable city. The street layouts vary from
rectangular grids (earliest gridiron plans of Hippodamus of Miletus e.g. in
the old core of Naples) to more irregular terrain-adapted street patters
like in medieval Stockholm (Figure 13). These cart and walking-friendly
street layouts are stark contrast of the cul-de-sacs, loops and lollipopslike street pattern (discussed in Southworth & Owens, 1993; Southworth
& Ben-Joseph, 1995; Southworth, 1997; 2005a) that are characteristic for
the automobile cities.
Figure 13: Pre-industrial walkable city. The irregular street pattern of
medieval Stockholm (the two photos on the left) and gridiron plan of
Naples (the photos on the right)
Krier (1984; 2009) formulated the European traditional city as a new
vision of a future city. Similar critiques and advocacy came from Italy
through the works of Muratori (1950) and Jane Jacobs (1961). Krier’s
vision of a city as agglomeration of walkable quarters was based on
historical cities with million residents such as ancient Rome, medieval
Constantinople and other large Mediterranean cities, especially during
the Italian Renaissance. This new traditionalism influenced New
Urbanism and TOD in the USA (Duany & Plater-Zyberk, 1991; Calthorpe,
1993; Kats, 1994; Talen, 1999) and triggered a debate on the revival of the
traditional European city (EU, 1990). In Europe, this informed research
about the compact city as a sustainable urban form (Breheny, 1992a;
1992b; 1996; Jenks et al., 1996; Williams et al., 2000; Barton, 2000;
36
Marshall & Banister, 2000; Marshall, 2001; Layard, et al., 2001;
Dampsey & Jenks, 2010). Urban experiments of New Urbanism have had
a profound influence on urban form and transportation research in the
USA (Southworth & Owens, 1993; Southworth & Ben-Joseph, 1995;
Southworth, 1997; 2005a; Cervero & Gorham, 1995; Cervero, 1996;
Crane, 1996a; 2000; Crane & Crepeau, 1998; Cervero & Kockelman, 1997;
Ewing & Cervero, 2001; 2010; 2017; Crane & Boarnett, 2001; Boarnet,
2011; Ewing et al., 2005; Ewing & Handy, 2009; Boarnet et al., 2011).
Short city blocks as advocated by Jacobs (1960) are usually described as
Design variable in the Ds (measured as intersection density in
Southworth & Owens, 1993) and is one of the strongest factors for high
modal share of walking and transit (Ewing & Cervero, 2001; 2010; 2017).
The mobility choices model in Paper 9 summarizes the most important
urban form factors for this research on walkability.
The earliest application of public transportation technology in the 19th
century (originally in the 17th century in Paris) involved the introduction
of buses and tramways that operated on streets. Buses and trams were
originally powered by horses, steam and cables and eventually by
electricity in the late 19th century and petroleum in the 20th century. The
buses and tramways created corridors of urban boulevards that rose in
prominence in the 19th century European and American cities. The
boulevards even in Los Angeles, a city that many assume to be designed
for the automobile, are typical developments along urban electric
railways. Los Angeles had a railway network extending 1600 kilometres
(1000 miles) in its heyday in the 1920s (see Paper 4 in the Licentiate
Thesis for Swedish experiences with omnibuses and tramways).
The trains and railways were the first transportation technology that
inspired an urban (or suburban) revolution. Ebenezer Howard (1898)
proposed a polycentric city consists of railway suburbs that take the best
of the city and countryside, a connection to the diverse and exiting city
and the green tranquillity of the landscape. Letchworth Garden City was
built according to the Ebenezer Howard’s city planning principles. The
railway station that connects to London is at the centre of the suburb.
Furthermore, the station is connected to a town centre with shops and
services. Commercial activity disappears as the distance from the railway
station increases. On the edges of the suburb, there is a residential zone
with different types of smaller or larger houses surrounded by greenery
(Figure 14). Paper 4 illustrates the Swedish suburban developments from
the middle of the 19th century including an urban design of a railway city
by Adolf W. Edelsvärd that was applied in the city of Nässjö.
37
Figure 14: Industrialising city and railways. Walking access to a railway
station to London, town centre and a villa in greenery were leitmotifs that
informed the development of Letchworth. This is a typical urban pattern
for a railway suburb from the late 19th century and early 20th century and
is advocated as TOD nowadays. The earliest railways suburbs were built
in the mid-19th century.
Until the mid-20th century, cities were designed for public transportation
and these ideal urban patterns exist as historical reminders of the 19th
century. The Letchworth Garden City development model and the urban
boulevards with trams or buses reached its heyday in the early 20th
century to be reinvented within the new paradigm of sustainable mobility
and multimodality. In the USA, the advocacy for TOD (Calthorpe, 1993)
inspired many experiments with new LRT and BRT systems starting in
the 1990s. The Licentiate Thesis investigates these historical urban
patterns and argues that the integration of the city with public
transportation needs to consider different morphological scales, from
urban nuclei and corridors to commercialisation of buildings around
38
transit stops (Paper 7). The ideal integration with public transportation
assumes visually proximity of local and regional transit stops (100 m
radius/visual range). These lines must have ‘around-the-clock’ service
with a minimum 10-minute headway (frequency of six vehicle per hour).
It is impossible to provide public transportation services to a city
designed for the automobile, but it is possible to create an ideal urban
pattern for around-the-clock, frequent and comfortable public
transportation. These urban form factors are included in the mobility
choices model in Paper 9.
The automobile and the freedom of movement by privately owned car
in the early 20th century inspired many architects to envision new urban
designs. Le Corbusier’s (1987 [1925]) imagined future cities with
segregated motorways that connect skyscrapers with offices in the centre
with factories and industrial zones, garden suburbs of apartment
buildings in the periphery. Experiments with new car-accommodating
neighbourhoods and motorways followed. The development of the New
Jersey suburb of Radburn at the end of the 1920s and the parkways of
New York from the 1930s (built under supervision of Robert Moses)
played an important role in creating ideal city for the private automobile.
The parkways separated motorists from pedestrians, whereas the
prototypical neighbourhood of Redburn had a hierarchical street pattern
with cul-de-sacs and driveways. The earliest visions of the cities for the
automobile became reality in the post-war period in the mid-20th century.
A set of influential transportation manuals emerged in the 1960s and
1970s such as Traffic in Towns in the UK, Highway Capacity Manual in
the USA or SCAFT (Stadsbyggnad, Chalmers, Arbetsgruppen för
Trafiksäkerhet) in Sweden (SCAFT, 1967) created urban design guidelines
for hierarchical road networks to improve traffic safety and facilitate
undisturbed circulation of cars.
Milton Keynes is a notable example of a new British town designed
for traffic safety. The pedestrian tunnels and overpasses in Milton Keynes
are intended to solve conflicts between pedestrian and vehicles. The
overpassing roundabouts facilitate the undisturbed circulation of private
vehicles. The segregation of traffic solves transportation problems, but
produces barriers in urban space that make walking difficult. The
pedestrians walk on paths surrounded by greenery with no access to the
surrounding buildings. They walk up and down, in and out of tunnels.
The bottom right photograph in Figure 15 shows an improvised market
under one of the overpassing roundabouts that connects two pedestrian
paths. The market under one of the overpasses (Figure 15, bottom left)
resembles another utopian vision of the city for the automobile. Geoffrey
Jellicoe’s (1961) utopian city Motopia had a system of motorways and
39
roundabout placed on building and viaducts. The buses cannot reach the
pedestrians. Figure 15 (top right) shows a lonely pedestrian in a tunnel
while an empty bus passes overhead.
Figure 15: The modern city for the automobile. Milton Keynes is a new
British town designed for traffic safety with pedestrian tunnels and
overpasses. The street layout facilitates undisturbed circulation and it is
an ideal urban pattern for the automobile. The sign on the top left photo
informs: ‘Pedestrians do not have Priority’.
40
Figure 16: The Swedish modern city hybrid. Kista is a Stockholm suburb
designed with both high integration with the metro, the Tunnelbana, and
the private automobile. The neighbourhood development model
combines urban elements such as the central square of Letchworth and
the segregation of pedestrian and car traffic from Milton Keynes in a
dense suburban development setting. The road network on the ground
allows undisturbed connection to the motorway and the entire region. A
landscaped network of paths and bridges allows pedestrians to walk to
the elevated metro station.
41
In the Swedish experiences, there is sometimes a mix of planning for
traffic safety with railway city neighbourhood models (Paper 4 narrates
the history and TOD models in Swedish cities). There is an extensive body
of research on the automobile city in Sweden (referred to as bilstaden or
the car city and more broadly as bilsamhället or the car society). Lundin
(2008) investigated the emergence of the ideal city of the automobile.
Hagson (2004) explored the influence of the SCAFT on Swedish
urbanism. Kista, Tensta, Husby, Rinkeby and other Stockholm suburbs
from this period were designed for ideal traffic safety similar to Milton
Keynes. The difference is that the suburbs were conceived as railway
cities along the Tunnelbana metro system. They were dense and linear
variants of the Letchworth railway suburb model, but with complete
segregation between pedestrian and car traffic (Figure 16). The pedestrian
traffic was elevated, whereas the car traffic was on the ground (as
proposed by Le Corbusier, 1986 [1923]; 1987 [1925]). This urban design
allowed pedestrians to walk to the metro through a landscaped
environment of apartment buildings and pedestrian bridges over roads.
At the same time, it was possible to take the elevator down to the garage
with direct access to the motorway nearby. Paper 9 summarizes the most
important urban form factors from these urban experiments. The ideal
urban form for automobility is a house or apartment with a driveway and
at least one garage as well as quick access to a motorway. Ideally, there
should be no interruption between garages or driveway at home and the
parking space at work or a third place (restaurant, theatre, cinema, sports
hall, church and so on). Parking standard and access road are the only
factors for car-oriented neighbourhoods (Shoup 1995; 1997; 2011).
In contrast to visions above walking paradises, future motor (or flying
drones) cities and TODs, there are almost no cycling cities promoted by
architects and urbanists. Cycling is especially understudied and neglected
(Krizek et al, 2009). Cycling advocacy draws on the experiences in
Amsterdam and Copenhagen, the cycling capitals of Europe (Figure 17)
where high share of cycling is a result of investment in cycling
infrastructures, but also the large historical urban cores from the
industrialisation period with limited possibilities for parking and low
motorisation rates (De Groote et al., 2016). There is also a Dutch cycling
city experiment with a car-free suburb of Utrecht, Houlten. Houlten has a
central commuter railway station linked to a square and a ring road that
encircles a car-free area that encourages walking and cycling. The modal
shares of walking and cycling is higher than the average for the
Netherlands (Foletta & Henderson, 2016). There is a growing literature
on the influence of cycling on urban form (Pucher et al., 1999; Moudon et
al., 2005; Krizek & Roland, 2005; Krizek & Johnson, 2006; Forsyth &
42
Krizek, 2010; 2011. Pucher & Buehler, 2008; 2011; 2012; Buehler &
Pucher, 2012; Oliva et al, 2018; Kryzek et al, 2018). The literature
consistently suggests that cycling infrastructure is important (Forsyth &
Krizek, 2010; Oliva et al, 2018) but some studies find no impact from the
introduction of bike lanes (Moudon et al, 2005) while others find impacts
only at close distances (Krizek & Johnson, 2006). On a city scale the
literature shows that cycling infrastructure is a crucial factor to increase
the modal share of biking, especially the length of bike lanes in cities
(Pucher & Buehler, 2008; 2011; 2012; Buehler & Pucher, 2012).
Figure 17: The city under industrialisation and the bicycle. Copenhagen
(the three photos on the left) and Amsterdam (three photos on the right)
are considered as cycling capitals of the world. The cycle is a dominant
element of the cityscape. Urban form elements such as cycle lanes and
racks are used in the mobility choices model in Paper 9 as ideal urban
patterns that support cycling.
43
Inspired by experiences with bikeways in Amsterdam and Copenhagen,
New York built over 450 km of bike lanes and mixed-use paths between
2000 and 2010 (Figure 18). The modal share of biking increased, but
remained rather low at 0.6%. The reason is the size of the city and long
trip distances, but also high density of traffic and the unpleasant
experience of cycling in heavy traffic with high levels of noise and air
pollution (Pucher & Buehler, 2011). However, the cycling capitals of
Europe are difficult to be transferred to reality in other cities, due to the
different topography, climates and mobility cultures.
Figure 18: Bikeways in the urban core from the industrialising period in
New York and cycling-supportive developments inspired by Copenhagen.
The embodied messages to cycle are there, but the effect is not as strong
as in Copenhagen or Amsterdam. There are very few cyclists in
comparison to number of pedestrians, trucks and automobiles. Cycling
competes with transit in New York. New York has a very strong transit
culture and accounts for roughly 35% of all annual transit journeys in the
USA (https://www.apta.com/).
44
Cycling requires smoothly paved bikeways, well-maintained
infrastructures and flat terrain, but also attractive cityscapes, cycling
lanes and racks to park the bikes as well as a mobility culture that
supports cycling. Based on the urban experiments with cycling and new
studies, the mobility choices model in Paper 9 also uses a set of urban
form and accessibility factors to create a vision for a cycling city.
The ideal cities are actuated in neighbourhood prototypes and design
guidelines (discussed as urban models and design rules by Choay, 1997).
Some urban design guidelines such as TOD combine both neighbourhood
models and sets of rules (e.g. Calthorpe, 1993). There is urban
morphogenetic processes is specific for every transportation technology
(Vance 1977; 1990a; 1999b). Transportation technologies compete with
one another in cities and they do not replace each other (as shown on
Figure 2). They coexist. Figure 12 shows the hierarchy where the
accessibility range of the automobile overlays other transportation
modes. Public transportation covers the range of cycling. Many European
cities experienced a cycling revolution in the mid-20th century that went
almost unnoticed by urban historians. Cycling reached over 50% of the
modal share in many European cities, reaching 80% in the flatlands of
central and northern Europe (Emanuel, 2012) and almost 50% in Britain
(Pooley & Turnbull, 2000; Shove et al,. 2012). Cyclists used the same
streets as pedestrians, buses and trams and had no impact on the physical
growth of cities. Today, the automobile with its speed subordinates slower
public transportation modes. Secondly, transportation morphogenesis
must include industries that manufacture vehicles as well as build and
maintain transportation infrastructures. The system of automobility (see
Sheller & Urry, 2001; Urry, 2004) includes iconic companies such as
Volvo or SAAB in Sweden in addition to lobbying organisations,
institutions and governments that have power to advertise urban visions,
build roads and motorways, neighbourhoods and cities and control urban
development. Many transportation technologies remain in a prototype or
embryonic stage because they do not have the supporting industrial and
administrative complex to manufacture billions vehicles and thousands of
kilometres of infrastructures to scale up. Frank Lloyd Wright envisioned
his Broadacre City with flying machines (drones). This aeromobility is not
affordable today, because helicopters, hovercrafts and drones are too
expensive to fly. The first electric car emerged in the 1830s and only in
recent years, with growing petroleum prices and environmental concerns,
has the automotive industry turned towards electric propulsion. Out of
the 100 million cars produced in 2017 (http://www.oica.net/), around
one million cars are electric. To support an electric automobility there is a
need for investment in electric cars and batteries, renewable power
45
plants, charging stations, battery outlets, and so on. This might happen
rapidly in the coming years, or electromobility might remain on the
margin of automobility. Paper 1 focuses on the transportation
morphogenesis of bus and BRT systems, their past and futures, whereas
Paper 4 focuses on public transportation systems in Swedish cities with a
particular emphasis on their elements and patterns.
In the end, each transportation mode has unique mobility cultures.
The bicycle personifies individuality, often to the point of eccentricity and
rebelliousness (similar to motorcycles and sports cars). Biking advocates
are often cycling experts highly aware of environmental impacts, local
eccentrics and loners, fashionable young professionals or students and
low-income bike commuters (Aldred & Jungnickel, 2014). While biking
and driving is strongly linked to individuality, public transportation
assumes communities moving together. The social aspects and plurality
of public transportation informs a concept of public mobility that creates
social cohesion and equality. This pro-transit leitmotif is particularly
evident in European cities. Another pro-transit argument involves time.
Sustainable mobility prioritizes the use of travel time and urban
experience (Cervero, 1996, Shoup, 2011). Here, the freedom to drive
wastes time and disturbs virtual presence. In the postmodern digitalising
society, there is conflict between driving to work and being online (Urry,
2007, discusses these mobility cultures in great detail). There is always a
struggle between the human scale and motorized transportation. Webber
(1963; 1964) wrote papers on communities without propinquity in a nonplace urban realm. Safdie (1998; p. 137) looks upon the Earth as a planet
inhabited by ‘metallic organisms of rectilinear form, whose locomotion is
achieved by four wheels attached to the main body’. Moshe Safdie
questions the human scale versus the need for mobility, while many
architects like Le Corbusier embrace the automobility. This returns the
debate to the two complementing approaches in sustainable mobility, one
pursuing urbanity and proximity within a human scale and the other
energy efficient mobility by means of technological fixes (green vehicles
or virtual travel) or urban form designed to support for mobility (by
energy efficient and environmental friendly transportation systems).
46
METHODOLOGY
This section describes methods used to investigate the RQs. The first
subsection presents morphological methods from typo-morphology and
urban analytics used to answer RQ1 and RQ2 in the Licentiate Thesis,
Paper 7 and Paper 8. The second subsection describes the mobility
choices model used in Paper 9 that addresses RQ3.
Morphological analyses
Typo-morphological methods
Typo-morphologists investigate the physical form of cities and processes
of formation and transformation by abstracting urban elements and types
or urban patterns (Rossi, 1982 [1966]; Alexander et al., 1977; Alexander,
1979; Caniggia & Maffei, 2001 [1979]; Steadman, 1979; 2014; Marshall &
Çalişkan, 2011). Typologies can be created by finding similarities in urban
forms or pattern matching, by following the historical emergence,
variation and multiplication of a prototype (of a building, street,
neighbourhood, and so on) or by selecting representative examples
(Goethe, 1988 [1817]; Southworth, 2005b).
Abstractions (Figure 19) and pattern matching (Figure 20) are two
typo-morphological methods used in this Doctoral Thesis to address the
RQs related to different scales (urban space, neighbourhood and urban
region). To answer RQ1, the Licentiate Thesis uses conventional methods
of abstraction to develop urban models of small and large Swedish cities
with complementary neighbourhood types (Figure 19A). Figure 19A1
identifies the variation of urban form elements in a similar
neighbourhood type (industrial area) and creates an abstraction of an
urban pattern (of neighbourhood type) with typical elements (plot,
building, city block). Figure 19A2 shows the methods of surveying the
typical neighbourhoods and abstracted urban patterns with
transportation infrastructures organized according to the period of
emergence (pre-industrial city, industrialising city, modern city and
postmodern city). These historical periods are based the analysis of the
structure of cities and accessibility (see Figure 2) cause by changes the
Swedish economy and society (Cars and Engström, 2008). The
neighbourhood typology in the Licentiate Thesis builds upon place types
(Engström et al., 1988), urban types (Rådberg, 1988; Rådberg & Friberg,
1996) and urban characters (SSBK 1997; 2000). Business and industry
neighbourhood types are additionally classified based on American
typologies of shopping malls (Southworth, 2005b) and shopping districts
(Scheer & Larice, 2015; Scheer, 2015).
47
Figure 19: Methods of abstracting urban patterns of neighbourhoods and
cities (Licentiate Thesis, Paper 2, Paper 3, Paper 7 and Paper 8)
48
Figure 20: Methods of pattern matching used to classify the
neighbourhoods in the city of Karlstad (Licentiate Thesis, Paper 3 and
Paper 8).
Figure 20 illustrates how pattern matching is used as a typomorphological method. In Figure 20A, neighbourhoods are selected as a
49
social construct (e.g., industrial area), whereas in Figure 18B, an urban
form (e.g., neighbourhood/city with villas) represents a prototype and
other neighbourhoods based on similarities such as building and plot
sizes, street layout (see Figure 6 for the morphological structure of
neighbourhoods). The Licentiate Thesis furthermore uses abstraction
(Figure 19A) and pattern matching (Figure 20B) to position and analyse
Hammarby Sjöstad as a stereotypical urban pattern of a compact city
neighbourhood and TOD. RQ1 addresses the effect of transit
infrastructures on cities. Hammarby Sjöstad is conceived as a
representative exemplar of a sustainable city neighbourhood. Hammarby
Sjöstad is compared with similar TODs in Europe and around the world
to examine the multiplication and variation of the prototype.
To address the implications for urban planning, design and
development as stated in RQ1, the Licentiate Thesis uses a method of
abstraction (Figure 19A) to dissect urban form elements and create a
typology of public transportation cities and transit stops. The produced
typology is then applied in Paper 7 to analyse the evolution of patterns of
commercial and public spaces in visual proximity to transit and abstract
typical TOD patterns of public spaces. Figure 19B illustrates abstractions
of a representative geometric shape based on the variation of shapes. The
morphological abstractions in the Licentiate Thesis and Paper 7 are
furthermore based on study visits to new BRT and LRT systems and
newly developed sustainable neighbourhoods around the world. Figure 21
illustrates the method of observation, analysing and dissecting urban
elements that is also used in Paper 7 to analyse public spaces.
A method of observation inspired by the urban elements of Kevin
Lynch (1960) and the morphological structure on Figure 4C is used on the
study visits to analyse urban spaces. The investigations include observing
street spaces (Figure 21A) and then dissecting and illustrating the
interactions between urban form elements (Figure 22B). Each street
space consists of elements such as buildings, their façades and
commercial frontages, streets and the elements in the street space such as
sidewalks, driving lanes, public transportation infrastructures, strips of
greenery with or without tree colonnades, and so on. The elements in
street spaces interact. The sidewalks of the street connect to the building
entrances, transit stop platforms connect to sidewalks, and so on. These
interactions create different types of street spaces. The typology of public
transportation systems is based on the segregation of the transit stop
from the street space that links to the surrounding buildings. This
includes interactions between the street (sidewalk) and the transit stop
(transit stop platform) and street (sidewalk) and building (building or
store entrances). The study visits focused on cities in developed countries
50
in Europe, North America and Australia that introduced new public
transportation systems and TODs (e.g., the Pearl District in Portland and
Rio Vista in San Diego), but also experiments with ideal cities for busses
(Runcorn), cars (Milton Keynes) and pedestrians and cycling (Houten).
Figure 21: The method to observation on the study visits that links to the
proposed morphological structure in Figure 3C (the typology of urban
edges/barriers is inspired by Lynch, 1960).
Urban analytics
Analytical methods such as regression analyses and analyses of variance
(ANOVA) are used in Paper 8 to answer RQ2. Based upon the
interrelationship pyramid (Figure 9), the effect of urban form on travel is
characterised as a direct link between urban form and travel variables
(place-node model). In this type of study, the explanatory variable is
usually a D-variable such as Density in Diversity and the response
variable is modal shares or travelled distances. The regression analyses in
Paper 8 use residential and employment density as well as aggregated
number of residents and jobs as explanatory variables and the responsive
variable is the number of daily journeys by public transportation (divided
by number of residents and jobs). Paper 8 furthermore differentiates
neighbourhood types and uses the General Linear Model (GLM) and
51
ANOVA that use the same generic formula of regression analyses to
investigate the effect of land uses and neighbourhood types as categorical
variables. The neighbourhood types historically embed transportation
infrastructures that support or hinder the use of public transportation.
Paper 8 hypothesises that the modal shares in typical neighbourhoods as
an aggregated variable would exhibit little variation.
Travel forecasting and mobility choices model
To address RQ3, Paper 9 combines methods from trip generation models
and sustainability indicators and proposes a mobility choices model
(Figure 22) to estimate modal share using the composite variable Level of
Integration (LoI). The LoIs for walking, cycling, public transportation and
private car include few important urban form and accessibility factors
(rather than land uses) listed in Table 2 at scales of visual proximity, local
accessibility and regional connectivity.
Figure 22: Mobility choices model based on urban form and accessibility
factors that informs mobility choices (LoIs), modal shares, energy use
and carbon emissions from transportation.
52
Table 2: Sustainable mobility indicators/urban form and accessibility
factors at different scales. The importance of the factor is shown in the
brackets (x) with the weights. The importance of the factor (9-point scale)
is shown in the brackets (x) with the weights. The sums include the 9scale values for all the factors and the 100% integration for the LoIs. The
weights of the factors are rounded proportionally according to the 9-scale
values in the brackets to sum up to 100% (e.g. parking is extremely
important (gets value 9) that rounds to 9/15=~60% of the integration
with the automobile).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Sustainable Mobility
Indicators/Urban Form and
Scale
Accessibility Factors
Sidewalk design and continuity
Visual
Street segment length/city block
Visual
width
Speed limit
Visual
Bike parking
Visual
Cycling lanes on street/cycleways
Visual
Bus line/busway/tramway on street
Visual
Transit stop/station exit on street
Visual
Parking
Visual
Undisturbed circulation (no
Visual
congestion)
Building setback
Visual
Building height to street width ratio
Visual
Building façade activity/openness
Visual
City block density (residents and jobs) Local
City block land use mix (entropy of
Local
residents and jobs)
Neighbourhood topography (slope)
Local
Access to everyday activities
Local
Access to event-type activities
Local
Access to a mix of activities
Local
Access to a local transit stop
Local
Access to a regional transit stop
Regional
Access to an expressway
Regional
Bikable location
Regional
Walking
Cycling
Public
Private
Transportation Car
(3) 51
(7) 15
(3) 51
(3) 10
(3) 10
(3) 5
(3) 5
(9) 60
(3) 10
51
(3)
(3) 51
(9) 201
(9) 202
(3) 5
(9) 202
(3) 5
(9) 40
(9) 20
(3) 5
(9) 20
(9) 30
(9) 30
(5) 30
(9) 40
Walking (7) 20
Sums
(42) 100 (24) 100
(27) 100
(15) 100
1 assigned to street space/open spaces between building façades
2 assigned to city blocks/constructed and open within the parameter of the building façades.
The conceptual framework in Figure 10 structures the urban form and
accessibility factors in the mobility choices model (Figure 22). The urban
form factors are presented as morphological structure in Figure 4C,
53
whereas Figure 12 illustrates accessibility ranges. The factors are
organized and weighted similar to sustainable mobility indicators. If all
factors are fulfilled, the LoI is at 100%. This equates to complete
integration with that particular mode. The weighting between factors in
the LoIs (Table 2) is done accordingly to the 9-point scale commonly used
for Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE) in GIS. Since the model uses only the
most important factors, only the top four values in the 9-point scale are
used: 9 for extremely, 7 for very much, 5 for moderately and 3 for slightly
important for integration with that particular transportation mode
(shown in brackets on Table 2).
Figure 20 illustrates the steps to forecast modal shares, carbon
emissions and energy use from transportation based on urban form and
accessibility factors and travel averages (trip length and number of
annual journeys). The LoI calculation uses the formula of a composite
sustainability indicator:
𝐿𝑜𝐼
∑
𝐿𝑜𝐼
𝑤
𝑐
Level of Integration for transportation mode m
weight for criterion/urban form or network access factor i
criterion/ urban form or network access factor i
𝑤
𝑐
The modal share estimate is based on competition between modes
(proportionally measured as the geometric mean between the LoIs) and
the aggregated number of annual journeys by different modes by
multiplying the modal share by 1000 (as mobility invariant, see Banister,
2011; based also on transportation statistics from Swedish national travel
surveys in Paper 9):
𝑁
𝑁
𝐿𝑜𝐼
𝐿𝑜𝐼
1000
Number of annual journeys for transportation mode m
Level of Integration with the city for transportation mode m
Level of Integration with the city for transportation modes i
Based on the forecasted number of annual journeys, energy use is
calculated by using average travelled distances for journeys with private
automobile or public bus and an assumed energy efficiency. The CO2
emissions are calculated by using average exhaust values for Swedish
gasoline (2.75 kg/l) and diesel mix (2.78 kg/l) and for average travelled
distance. The average travelled distances are based on numbers from the
Swedish national travel survey (Paper 9 that shows the table with the
54
results from the survey), whereas energy efficiency is estimated from fuel
efficiency for Swedish gasoline and diesel mix (Energimyndigheten,
2017). Average consumption of fuel is 8 litres of gasoline for a private car
and 40 litres of diesel for a public bus. An average journey by a public bus
is 15 kilometres with fuel use of 7KWh/km, whereas a journey by private
car averages 18 kilometres and consumes 10KWh/km.
To test the mobility choices model three typical neighbourhoods, a
traditional urban core in Jönköping, a modern residential suburb in
Jönköping, and a modern urban centre in Stockholm, were selected to
link to the neighbourhood typology from the Licentiate Thesis. The
results of the mobility choices model are furthermore compared with
actual modal shares and online travel forecasting model Trafikalstring
developed for Trafikverket, the Swedish Transportation Administration
(Trafikverket, 2011). Trafikalstring estimates trip generation rates
(number of journeys generated daily in the neighbourhood and modal
shares) by considering the types of residences, jobs and factors related to
accessibility by walking, cycling, public transportation and private car.
The modal splits are calculated by manual input of demographic profiles,
land use, and local and regional accessibility factors in the web
application. The demographic profile derives from actual statistics and
includes variations of 100 residences and jobs representative of these
specific city blocks. The results are then encoded and visualized in GIS.
Pie chart diagrams show the modal split. Figure 23 shows bar charts for
types of residents and jobs used as input in the web application.
Figure 23: The demographics input into Trafikalstring, the online travel
forecasting model (https://applikation.trafikverket.se/trafikalstring/)
In the end, the actual modal split depends on the individual preferences
of travellers. Individuals join market segments of mobility classes (Figure
11). To show the perspectives of how different mobility classes would
interpret mobility choices as affordances or preconditions to travel, the
Mobility Class Score (MCS) summarises the most radical cases of mobility
classes. The MCS illustrates how a radical flâneur, a cycling advocate, a
55
bus enthusiast or train spotter, a green traveller, a rational agent and a
dedicated motorist perceives the neighbourhood as a set of mobility
choices from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). Based on the estimations of the LoIs,
the overall MCS is calculated as:
𝑀𝐶𝑆
∑
𝑤𝑀𝐶𝑆
𝐿𝑜𝐼
,
𝑀𝐶𝑆
Mobility Class Score for a mobility class c
Level of integration for transportation modes m
𝐿𝑜𝐼
𝑤𝑀𝐶𝑆 Weight for specific transportation mode m for mobility class c
The weight for a specific transportation mode m and for mobility class c
are estimated arbitrarily. A radical flâneur is terrified of motorists and is
wary of passing cyclists. The dedicated motorists does not like to drive in
urban environments crowded with pedestrian and cyclists. Table 3
summarises the weights for the typical mobility classes.
Table 3: Weighting of transportation mode preferences for typical
mobility classes shown on Figure 11.
Public
Transportation
Like extremely Dislike slightly Dislike slightly
Flâneurs
(0.92)
(0.03)
(0.03)
Cycling
Dislike slightly Like extremely Dislike slightly
Advocates (0.03)
(0.92)
(0.03)
Bus or
Neither like nor Neither like nor Like extremely
Rail Nerds dislike (0.08)
dislike (0.08)
(0.75)
Walking
Cycling
Private Car
Dislike extremely
(0.01)
Dislike extremely
(0.01)
Neither like nor
dislike (0.08)
Dislike
Green
Like moderately Like moderately Like moderately
moderately
Travelers (0.33)
(0.33)
(0.33)
(0.01)
Rational Neither like nor Neither like nor Neither like nor Neither like nor
Agents
dislike (0.25)
dislike (0.25)
dislike (0.25)
dislike (0.25)
Dedicated Dislike extremely Dislike extremely Dislike
Like extremely
motorists (0.01)
(0.01)
extremely (0.01) (0.96)
To calculate the weights in Table 3, each typical mobility class receives a
weight based on the following 9-point scale: extremely likely (9); very
likely (7); moderately likely (5); slightly likely (3); 5) neither likely nor
unlikely (1); slightly unlikely (1/3); moderately unlikely (1/5); very
unlikely (1/7); and extremely unlikely (1/9). The weight factor is
calculated by summing the weights of different factors for each row and
divided with the weight of the transportation mode. The sum for flâneurs
is 9.778=9+1/3+1/3+1/9 and the weight is 0.92=9/9.778.
56
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section presents the findings and discusses the practical application
of morphological abstractions and sustainable mobility indicators in
urban planning, design and development processes. The three sections
follow the order of the RQs. Based upon the Licentiate Thesis, the first
section discusses the effect of transportation systems on cities by looking
at historical urbanisation in Sweden (Licentiate Thesis and Paper 8). The
second section summarizes the research on the effect of urban form
variables on travel variables (Licentiate Thesis and Paper 7). The third
section links the analyses of urban form (Licentiate Thesis, Paper 7 and
Paper 8) with information about sustainable mobility indictors (Paper 9).
The discussions emphasise urban transformation for sustainable mobility
in Swedish cities, but the findings are also applicable to cities in other
developed countries that have sprawled to accommodate the private car
and automobility in the 20th century.
Cities and transportation systems
Urbanisation patterns in Swedish cities
To answer RQ1 about the effect of public transportation systems on cities,
the Licentiate Thesis presents the history of Swedish industrialisation and
urbanisation as a set of two complementing urban models (Figure 24 and
Figure 25).
Figure 24 illustrates the historical expansion of Swedish cities
through four major cyclical changes: the traditional, industrial, modern
and postmodern city. The y-axis is a historical timeline that includes
changes in economy and society along with transportation revolutions
and the emergence of new technologies. The x-axis indicates distance
from the city centre with cores and peripheries for each urban
development cycle. With the emergence of the first railway suburbs,
Stockholm as an industrialising city expanded to a radius of up to 20
kilometres by the end of the 19th century. With the rapid motorisation and
investment in the subway and commuter rail, the radius of modern
Stockholm increased to more than 50 kilometres and incorporated
regional cores (new towns) such as Norrtälje and Södertälje. Since the
1990s, there have been discussions to introduce high-speed commuter
trains to link Stockholm with the neighbouring cities of Uppsala,
Nyköping, Västerås and Eksilstuna within a 100 kilometres radius. At the
same time, Stockholm experienced deindustrialisation and the
redevelopment of the historical industrial zone. Factories moved to the
peripheries of the postmodern city (especially around Arlanda airport)
and to global locations. Industrial zones, usually on the waterfronts, were
redeveloped into postmodern sustainable city neighbourhoods. These are
57
often referred to as Waterfront Cities (Sjöstads) following the successful
ongoing urban experiment with Hammarby Sjöstad. These new
sustainable city neighbourhoods expand the historical core of the
industrialising city and at the same time, they are new suburbs of the
postmodern city.
Figure 24: Cyclical changes and morphogenesis of Swedish cities during
periods of industrialisation and modernisation of society, together with
the urban cores and peripheries (inspired by Lefebvre, 1996 [1967]; 2003
[1970]; Engström et al., 1988; Soja, 1989; Graham & Marvin, 1996;
Rådberg & Friberg, 1996; Engström & Cars, 2008)
58
Figure 25: Neighbourhood types in the evolution of Swedish cities
59
Figure 25 presents an urban model of a small city and a large city with
typical neighbourhoods that emerged during the morphogenesis of
Swedish cities. It shows the typical urban form of the neighbourhoods
shown on Figure 24 by selecting representative neighbourhoods from
different periods. The Swedish neighbourhood typology illustrates the
historical integration of Swedish neighbourhoods with walking, public
transportation and the private car. The pre-industrial city was designed
for walking, pushcarts and coaches. Railways (and bicycles) emerged
during the industrialisation, while the modern city was shaped by the
automobile. Ultimately, the new postmodern developments recognize
multimodality as diversity of mobility choices. The neighbourhood
typology is furthermore important to frame the discussion about urban
transformation to enable mobility choices. The neighbourhood types of
the modern cities (types 8, 10, 13, 16, 17 and 19) lack mobility choices.
Instead of discussing redesign and transformation of these
neighbourhood types (which problematic from the perspective of mobility
choices and sustainable mobility) there is an emergence of a new type of
sustainable city neighbourhood, Hammarby Sjöstad being the prototype,
with quasi-enclosed urban blocks (type 22) to solve the problem of
unsustainable mobility and dependence on fossil fuels. Sustainable
mobility can be achieved only if all the Swedish neighbourhoods are open
for development. This is a very difficult and expensive undertaking that
requires possible demolition. Historically, only the industrial urban cores
of Swedish cities experienced a cycle of bulldozing, redevelopment and
modernisation during the 20th century (type 3 to type 10).
The effect of transportation systems on Swedish cities and
neighbourhoods
To answer RQ1, the Licentiate Thesis furthermore presents models of a
typical large and small Swedish city considering the development effect
caused by transportation systems (Figure 26). The Licentiate Thesis
(Paper 3 in particular) investigates the possibility of introducing public
transportation systems, particularly BRT, to inspire urban development
and transform these Swedish suburbs. RQ1 is approached from the
perspective of integration with public transportation.
60
Figure 26: Models of Swedish urbanisation and the development effect of
transportation
61
Figure 26 shows two major development cycles and ongoing trends in
Swedish urban development in the last two decades. The public
transportation of the 19th century and the private automobile in the 20th
century created two very different patterns of dispersed urban nuclei. The
public transportation systems on streets created urban corridors and
produced amoebic extensions from the urban nucleus in the second half
of the 19th century industrialising city. This affected the expansion of the
pre-industrial urban core during industrialisation. Public trains and
suburban railways created a commuting culture that peaked in the second
half of the 20th century with the emergence of the automobiles and
motorways. The archipelago-like structure of Swedish urban regions
hinders walking and cycling and requires new orbital and branching
public transportation systems to provide directional service between the
urban islands. The new BRT and LRT systems in smaller cities such as
Karlstad are radial connections that link the historical urban core with
the suburbs (Figure 26A). In large Swedish cities, such as Stockholm and
Gothenburg, BRT and LRT systems are typically orbital links that encircle
the historical core. They are positioned as axes on multimodal boulevards
in new sustainable city neighbourhoods (Figure 26B).
The Licentiate Thesis also focused on experimentation with
sustainable city neighbourhoods. Hammarby Sjöstad is a Swedish
prototype for a sustainable city neighbourhood. Figure 26 shows the map
of Hammarby Sjöstad and historical inspirations behind its urban pattern
and morphogenesis. Hammarby Sjöstad is an urban redevelopment
project and an experiment with policies of urban densification and the
mixing of land uses. Morphologically the urban pattern of Hammarby
Sjöstad is a postmodernist combination of the dense industrial city of
enclosed city blocks facing the multimodal boulevard and a modernist
suburb. The building façades towards the courtyards resemble the façades
of the apartment blocks placed in the open landscape of the late
modernist suburbs (Figure 27A). Hammarby Sjöstad experienced
deindustrialisation where some of the derelict industrial buildings were
refurbished into offices, while others were demolished. New, mixed-use
and partially enclosed city blocks gradually replaced the demolished
industrial buildings. Parts of neighbourhood type 1 (old industrial area) in
Mårtensdal and Luma remained. The developers maintained and
increased the number of jobs and added residents by rolling out
neighbourhood type 2 (new sustainable city neighbourhood) pattern
along the Tvärbana, the LRT system. Sickla Udde has developed as
neighbourhood type 2 (Figure 27B).
62
Figure 27: Morphological dissection of Hammarby Sjöstad as a prototype
of sustainable city neighbourhood along LRT (or BRT) systems.
63
Paper 4 in The Licentiate Thesis describes Swedish experiences with
TOD. It also shows an emergence of new stereotypical sustainable city
neighbourhoods that look like Hammarby Sjöstad (Figure 28).
Figure 28: Similarities between the sustainable city neighbourhood
developments in the Northern European cities. The top row is West
Harbor (Länsisatama or Västra hamnen) in Helsinki, the second row is
Ørestad in Copenhagen, the third row is Western Harbor (Västra
hamnen) in Malmö and the bottom row is Barkarby Stad and Hammarby
Sjöstad in Stockholm.
64
Paper 4 also shows a comparison between the newly developed European
neighbourhoods and American TODs, e.g. in the city of San Diego where
there is a variety of developments (Figure 29).
Figure 29: American TODs along the LRT system in San Diego show a
variety of developments accentuated by towers, transit stops on streets in
urban city blocks, and suburban residential and commercial TODs.
The sustainable city neighbourhoods under development in the
Netherlands, France, the UK, Denmark, Finland and Sweden (Figure 28)
65
are very similar in terms of street layouts, location and choice of
transportation systems. They are dense and diverse redevelopments of
the industrial zones of the 19th century that were located on rivers or
channels. BRT and LRT are the preferred public transportation systems.
The partially segregated busways or railways are regarded as urbanity
empowering and more attractive since they do not cause barrier effects of
fully separated railways and busways. The BRT or LRT lines in the
projects are often designed as medians on multimodal boulevards and act
as public transportation axes in the new sustainable neighbourhoods. The
boulevards usually include bike lanes, sidewalks along attractive façades
with storefronts and ribbons of greenery and landscaping. The density,
walkable boulevards, the city blocks resembling industrialising cities and
the mix of uses would arguably increase shares of walking and public
transportation. That would contribute to a modal shift away from the
private automobile and more sustainable urban conditions. In contrast,
American TOD experiences vary greatly from city to city. Portland created
urban corridors along tramways accentuated by high residential building
adjacent to every tram stop. San Diego introduced residential and
commercial towers in visual proximity or over the transit stops. These
kind of accentuations not only boost density, but also create landmarks
and reference points in the cities (see Lynch, 1960; Bentley et al., 1985;
for the role of landmarks in urban design and orientation in cities).
Other problems come with wide repetition of Hammarby Sjöstad as
neighbourhood development pattern without considering mobility
aspects. Firstly, the development pattern is repeated widely with small
variations both in large and small cities across Sweden as a city block
model. The replications are sometimes just a city block development
without multimodal LRT or BRT boulevard. This hinders the use of public
transportation. Secondly, the abandoned industrial zones are not always
the best location. The water segregated the factories from the historical
core of the industrial city. The segregated locations of the newly
developed sustainable city neighbourhoods pose difficulties for walking,
cycling and using public transportation between the historical urban core
from the industrialisation and its postmodern urban core expansion.
To analyse the modal shares in Swedish regions and the impact of
new sustainable city neighborhoods, Figure 30 summarises the annual
number of public transportation journeys with respect to density, costs of
operating public transportation and motorisation rates (increased
motorisation negatively influences transit use).
66
Figure 30: Trends of public transportation demand (number of annual
journeys) regressed with population density, motorisation levels and
annual costs to operate public transportation by inhabitant (the arrow
shows the trend development from 2003-2017) (Source: www.trafa.se
and www.scb.se)
67
Figure 30 inspired by Newman and Kenworthy (1989) who show negative
relationship between population density and annual petrol consumption.
Wegener (1995; 1996) contests this diagram by presenting a similar
trendline showing the relation of annual petrol consumption with petrol
price relative to income as the economic variable. The three aspects
illustrate the relations in the interrelationship triangle (Figure 9). The
number of annual journeys can be furthermore divided by 1000 (mobility
constant for total annual journeys by inhabitant, see Banister, 2011) to
estimate the modal share of public transportation. This is the rate of total
number of journeys rather than the share of travelled distances because
journeys by public transportation are, on average, shorter than the trips
by private automobile.
The trendlines in Figure 30 show high explanation coefficients
(R2>0.7) for population density and annual costs to operate public
transportation by inhabitant as explanatory variables. These coefficients
are lower (R2=0.475) for motorisation rates. The trend development in
the period 2003-2017 shows that population density increased slightly in
Stockholm, but the share of public transportation remained roughly the
same, whereas in the other regions, especially Skåne (Malmö) and Västra
Götaland (Gothenburg) the population density remained the same, but
the share of public transportation increased slightly in the last 14 years.
Figure 30 also shows that the modal shares of public transportation are
within 5-15% (50-150 annual journeys) of the total number of annual
journeys (roughly 1000). These numbers are too low and they have been
increasing in a very slow pace (stagnating in Stockholm, where most of
the urban growth occurs). There are some hints about these results. The
region of Skåne (Malmö) and Västra Götaland (Gothenburg) started with
small modal shares of public transportation. During the last 20 years,
there was improvement of bus services and introduction of express buses
that operate during morning and afternoon peaks. These express buses
usually drive on motorways at high speed and are competitive with the
automobile. The transit network in Stockholm did not change
dramatically in this period. At the same time, the fares increased by 50%.
With the change of the transit network, small cities like Karlstad saw a
50% change in annual journeys (but a minor modal shift from 8% to
12%). However, these changes are not so dramatic to influence the
dominance of the automobile. In Stockholm where the modal share of
public transportation is around 30%, a 50% change in annual journeys
would mean a modal share of 45%.
The Licentiate Thesis identified two problems with implementing a
holistic approach to sustainable mobility and mobility choices with the
multiplication and dispersal of the prototype Hammarby Sjöstad (not
68
always along new BRT or LRT systems). This multiplication is understood
as a transportation morphogenesis towards neighbourhoods and cities
integrated with multimodal transportation systems (as seen in the
emergence of the new postmodern city). First, the BRT and LRT on
multimodal boulevards are slower than subways and commuter rail
systems. The busway from the historical core of Gothenburg to
Lindholmen and Eriksberg (similar development as Hammarby Sjöstad
in Gothenburg) provides an alternative. The Tvärbanan LRT system in
Hammarby Sjöstad makes an orbital connection to the subway system in
Stockholm. The orbital connections and partially segregated public
transportation systems are less competitive with the private automobile
for radial journeys to the city centre. The residents of Hammarby Sjöstad
started to demand a subway connection to the city centre. The historical
core (industrial city on Figure 25) of Stockholm is usually serviced by
both subway and trunk bus services (referred to as BHLS, a lighter
version of BRT, that parallels the tram/LRT systems). While Hammarby
Sjöstad performs well in terms of shares of walking, cycling and public
transportation, the multiplication of this neighbourhood pattern in
smaller cities and suburbs such as Silverdal or Ursvik in Stockholm
reveals major flaws. Many of these dense neighbourhoods are located on
waterfronts, placed on hills or in isolated forest areas where it is difficult
to provide direct public transportation services. Secondly, the lack of
mobility choices in all Swedish modern city neighbourhoods is not
addressed. The neighbourhoods without mobility alternatives to the
private automobile that emerged during the modernisation of Swedish
cities (types 8, 10, 13, 16, 17 and 19 in Figure 25) are preserved. By
preserving the problematic neighbourhoods and developing only a
handful of new sustainable city neighbourhoods, it is impossible to
catalyse sustainable development in the entire urban region and cause a
major shift towards public transportation (Figure 30).
Urban patterns of (ideal) public transportation cities
To address the issues of low modal shares of public transportation in
Swedish regions (particularly the stagnant trends in Stockholm) and the
inapplicability of the neighbourhood development model of Hammarby
Sjöstad as a prototype, Paper 2 creates a typology of (ideal) urban
patterns for public transportation cities (Figure 31; Table 4 and Figure
32). The Licentiate Thesis proposed the use of a typology of public
transportation cities as ideal urban patterns (see Figure 31 and Table 4) to
transform the problematic neighbourhood types (Figure 25) by
introducing new busways and other public transportation infrastructures.
The typology reflects the Swedish experiences with TOD (Paper 4) and
emerged from study visits of TODs along new BRT or LRT systems
69
around the world (described as background on transportation
morphogenesis and ideal patterns for transportation systems).
Figure 31: Morphological differentiation of public transportation system
by segregation from street (space) in the context of BRT: 1) Bus lines on
streets in London and New York; 2) Partially segregated busways in Los
Angeles and Cambridge, England; 3) completely segregated busways in
Istanbul and Adelaide; and 4) bus tunnels in Boston and Seattle.
Table 4: Service characteristics of typical public transportation systems
Bus line on street or
tramway (local
transit)
Bus line on
expressway (regional
transit)
Bus line or tramway
on dedicated lane on
streets (local transit)
Light busway or
railway (local transit)
Heavy busway or
railway (regional
transit)
Bus line in tunnel or
underground railway
(regional transit)
Distance
between
transit stops
Transit
speed
Short
Low
High
Corridors
5-10
Long
Long
High
Nuclei
30-60
Short
(Medium)
Low
(Medium)
Medium
Corridors
5-10
(10-15)
Medium
Medium
Medium
Corridors
5-10
Long
High
Low
Nuclei
15-100
Medium
(Long)
Medium
(Long)
Medium
(High)
Nuclei
15-30
(15-100)
70
Transit
Urban
Line length
frequency development
(km)
Figure 32: Morphological abstractions about integration of the typology
of public transportation systems in three-dimensional urban space
71
From the perspective of walking on the street as the underlying element
of urban form (see the morphological structure on Figure 4C and Figure
6A); four types of public transportation systems and transit stops can be
classified: transit on streets, completely segregated transit systems on the
ground or elevated, underground systems and partially segregated
systems on the ground (Figure 31). These types of public transportation
systems and transit stops have similar service characteristics and ways to
integrate with cities at a regional scale (Table 4) and in urban space. They
are conceived as ideal urban patterns for integration of public
transportation with cities.
Building upon the public transportation cities typology in the
Licentiate Thesis (Figure 31), Paper 7 investigates commercialisation and
public space patterns in visual proximity to transit stops. These TOD
patterns of public spaces (marked in yellow) designate urban spaces
surrounded by public buildings and commercial storefronts that create
walkable environments. Figure 32 illustrates how the elongations and
amoebic shapes of the TOD patterns of public spaces in visual proximity
to transit stops deviate significantly from standard TOD rings, both in
size and form. Commercialisation is usually limited to a 100-200 meter
viewshed with respect to the transit stop. The visual proximity and urban
elements (public buildings and commercial storefronts) are used in Paper
9 to analyse the integration of walking and public transportation and the
influence of the affordances of urban forms.
The typology of ideal urban patterns for integration of public
transportation with cities (see Figure 19, Table 2 and Figure 20) offers a
morphological understanding of urban form elements in interplay and
informs discussions on the transformation of neighbourhoods that lack
mobility choices (types 8, 10, 13, 16, 17 and 19 in Figure 25). Some
neighbourhood types are less accommodating of new transit systems,
while others are more flexible. The typology communicates about
integration with public transportation by emphasizing the interaction
between the transit stop and the street, the street and the building as
three urban form elements in visual proximity, together with the walking
radii. The loading platform or station exit must connect to a street (or
square) that continues in a walkable environment to the building.
Paper 7 takes an alternative approach to TOD by looking at public
spaces and the composition of urban form elements (public buildings and
commercial storefronts) that are important in the process of creating
public spaces. Transit professionals have established rules of 5- to 10minute radial walksheds for transit stops (usually 300-400 meters or
600-800 meters radius around bus stops or rail stations). The walking
radii are considered as ideal walksheds (Figure 8), whereas the TOD
72
pattern of public spaces put an emphasis on the commercial core of TOD
(discussed by Calthorpe, 1993). The process of creating public spaces and
commercialising buildings surrounding typical transit stops (Figure 32)
in the neighbourhood types (Figure 25) is crucial for integrating public
transportation. Factors such as commercial storefronts (in visual
proximity) and transit frequency (as accessibility factor) are included in
the mobility choices model in Paper 9.
The typology and its application needs to be understood critically. The
tendency in the abstraction is to be general and present a select number
of generic types (Alexander, 1979). There are many other aspects beyond
the level of segregation that can be used for classification. The level of
segregation from the street is one of three factors (the others being
vehicle type and type of service) used for classification of transit systems
(Vuchic, 1981; 2007). A similar bus station typology based on segregation
was devised to analyse walking distances (Jiang et al., 2011). However, it
is possible to create more detailed typologies. Loukaitou-Sideris et al.
(2013) illustrate several types of elevated transit stops and ways to
integrate them with surrounding buildings and neighbourhoods. In the
end, Paper 9 incorporates the most important urban elements
(commercial storefronts and public spaces patterns) in the mobility
choices model to better link urban visions and typologies that support
public transportation with sustainable mobility goals for transportation
energy use and carbon emissions.
The effect of urban form on travel behaviour
The Licentiate Thesis and Paper 8 address RQ2 on two scales. The
Licentiate Thesis uses a chart to show the effect of Density on modal
share in Swedish regions. Paper 8 juxtaposes typo-morphology methods
and urban analytics to investigate public transportation patronage at the
neighbourhood scale.
Effect of density and diversity on travel patterns
The Licentiate Thesis presents a chart that shows denser regions produce
higher shares of public transportation (Figure 30). The effect of Density
on public transportation also needs to be considered in context of the
interrelationship triangle (Figure 9) where economic factors (costs for
operating public transportation) and transportation systems
(motorisation rates and competitiveness between transportation modes)
also play a role.
Building upon the tradition of D-variables described in the
Background and Theoretical Framework section, Paper 8 examines the
urban form and travel variables in the neighbourhoods of Karlstad. The
study shows that the explanation coefficients (R squared) are much better
and statistically more significant for residents (R2=0.166, Sig=0.002)
73
than for jobs (R2=0.117, Sig=0.011). By combining residents and jobs in
one aggregated variable or by considering them as two separate variables
into a model both the explanation coefficient and their significance
doubles (R2=0.293 and R2=0.296 respectively). The number of residents
and jobs explains roughly 30% of the variation in bus passenger boarding.
These results also correspond to Swedish experiences where residential
density explains roughly one-third of the variation (Holmberg, 2013).
Density explains 50-60% of the public transportation patronage in the
earliest studies (Pushkarev & Zupan, 1977) and is an important urban
form variable at the neighbourhood and city scales in other European
studies, especially in Northern Europe (Stead & Marshall, 2001; Naess,
2006; 2012). The measures for Diversity show no significant effect on
generation of bus journeys in Karlstad.
Beyond density
There are two problems with implementing Density and Diversity
variables in urbanist practices towards increased modal shares of
walking, cycling and public transportation. Urban forms such as
residential and commercial towers surrounded by car parks can have a
similar density and mix of residents and jobs as the walkable main streets
in small cities. It is possible to develop dense and diverse neighbourhoods
that are non-walkable, far from public transportation, and so on. There
are continuous discussions on the problem of density and urban form
(Unwin, 1912; Rapoport, 1975; Rådberg, 1988; Pont & Haupt, 2007; Hall,
2011). The second problem is complexity. The research on D-variables
such as density can include many variables (e.g. Park, et al., 2015). With
access to numerous variables, researchers often run very complex
multivariate models to analyse the interaction between transportation
and land use. This research is useful for theory building and
conceptualizing, but practitioners that work with established zoning
standards or FBCs such as number of dwellings, residents or jobs (as
absolute numbers or per hectare), FSIs, OSIs, building heights, building
types, parking standards, and so on can experience information overload.
It is also difficult to control parameters such age groups, types of jobs,
and other factors in urbanist practice. To address the problems of
simplification and complexity, Paper 5 classifies neighbourhoods and
analyses the variation of D-variables in the typical neighbourhood,
whereas Paper 8 analyses the effect of neighbourhood type as a single
nominal variable that can exchange several D-variables. The results of
Paper 5 (Figure 33) and Paper 8 (Figure 34) reveal intervals for different
D-variables and travel variables. The travel variables are more dispersed
than urban form variables, but they still create intervals.
74
Figure 33: Neighbourhood types in the Swedish city of Karlstad (the
similarities in residential and employment density as well as distances
from the city centre are visible on the charts as clusters of symbols)
75
Figure 34: Scatter plot charts showing intervals by land uses and
neighbourhood types
The neighbourhood typology (Figure 25) is used to classify the
neighbourhoods in the city of Karlstad and to chart how different urban
76
form variables (such as residential and employment density, distances to
the centre, and so on) are distributed (Figure 33). The urbanisation of
Karlstad corresponds to the model of the small Swedish city (distances to
the centre in Figure 24 and neighbourhood types in Figure 25). The
typological study of the city of Karlstad (Paper 5) confirms that
residential and employment densities (similar to other D variables) vary
within consistent intervals for neighbourhood types as well as FSIs, OSIs
and distance from the centre. This corresponds to the findings in the city
of Vasteras (Rådberg & Johannson, 1997). Engström (2008) illustrates
the consistent changes in residential and employment densities in the
urban cores of several Swedish towns and cities. According to Swedish
urban morphologists, neighbourhood type explains not only urban form
variables (Rådberg 1988; Rådberg & Friberg 1996), but also age structure
in neighbourhoods, residential and employment densities and urban
development tendencies that change over time (Engström et al. 1988;
Engström & Legeby, 2001; Engström, 2008).
Neighbourhood types have particular social meaning and status. This
knowledge is useful in an urban design when aggregating urban form
elements into a neighbourhood type, but also its social context. The
information about the transportation performance in terms of trip
generation per residents and per job can be useful especially in Swedish
municipalities that already use neighbourhood types in practice (SSBK,
1997; 2000; MSBK, 2001). Showing trip generation rates for public
transportation, besides residential and employment densities organized
by neighbourhood type provides additional and valuable information for
urban planners and designers, developers and municipal officials. This
provides insights on the transportation performance of the
neighbourhoods and suggests that there are opportunities to develop
urban transformation scenarios towards achieving sustainable mobility.
Paper 8 juxtaposes two morphological approaches, typo-morphology
and urban analytics, and presents a new methodology to investigate the
effect of urban form on travel. The typo-morphological and urban
analytical approaches complement one another. Typo-morphology is
useful to analyse the historical emergence and evolution of urban patterns
such as neighbourhood types and their underlying urban form elements,
patterns of streets, plot divisions and buildings. However, there are
limitations in mixing typo-morphology and urban analytics. Typomorphological studies require in-depth knowledge of the historical
evolution of the city and neighbourhood types (elaborated in the
Licentiate Thesis). Another disadvantage of using typo-morphological
methods is that it involves abstraction and generalisation. It is possible to
abstract neighbourhood types into typology. The process of urban design
77
can be guided by typologies as a theory or doctrine of types (Steadman,
2014), but it has to consider the morphogenetic process, rather than the
replication of a design pattern (Scheer, 2010). If a historical pattern of a
neighbourhood type (e.g. a railway suburb of the early 20th century) is
replicated as a new TOD today, the neighbourhood type will be different
in the historical context. This will affect age groups, social grouping, and
other parameters, despite similarities in urban design as well as
residential and employment densities.
Analysing urban forms to inform sustainable mobility
To address RQ3, Paper 9 develops a mobility choices model that delivers
concise and visual information about the integration of different
transportation modes, modal shares, carbon emissions and energy use in
transportation. Paper 9 builds upon this empirical knowledge about the
effect of urban form on travel (including the Licentiate Thesis, Paper 7
and Paper 8).
The mobility choices model uses a composite measure of the
integration of walking, cycling, public transportation and private car (LoI)
that combines and weights urban form and accessibility factors. The LoIs
for the particular transportation modes measure preconditions to travel
and they vary in complexity. Each particular transportation mode has a
combination of urban form and accessibility factors as well as
environmental preconditions to travel that supports its mobility. A
private automobile needs parking space at the destination and quick
access to an expressway. These two crucial factors equate to 100%
integration. Walking, cycling and public transportation require a very
complex combination of urban form and accessibility factors. The
integration with public transportation includes more than ten weighted
factors (including the factors for walking). Based on the LoIs for walking,
cycling, public transportation and private car (0–100%) as preconditions
to travel, the modal choices model calculates modal shares
proportionally. Better preconditions to travel with particular
transportation modes means better integration with the buildings and
this would arguably result in higher modal shares for that transportation
mode. Figure 35-37 show heat maps for all the factors in the LoIs, the
LoIs for walking, cycling, public transportation and private car and the
modal shares for the three study areas in Paper 9. Green indicates better
mobility choices and red indicates worse mobility choices on all heat
maps. Figure 38 summarizes these findings and presents the modal share
results of the mobility choices model as heat maps and the pie charts for
the trip generation model Trafikalstring and actual modal shares for
comparison.
78
Figure 35. Heat maps of LoIs and modal shares (Munksjöstaden)
79
Figure 36. Heat maps of LoIs and modal shares (Tenhult)
80
Figure 37. Heat maps of LoIs and modal shares (Haningeterrassen)
81
Figure 38: Information about the effect of urban form on multimodal
travel (modal share estimation in trip generation forecasting tool
Trafikalstring, travel surveys and the mobility choices model)
82
The mobility choices model furthermore links mobility choices and modal
shares with environmental goals (carbon emissions from transportation
measured in t CO2/year/person) and transportation energy efficiency
(kWh/year/person). Figure 39 shows the energy use and CO2 estimates
based on the modal shares of public transportation and private car,
annual number of journeys and average travelled distances for a journey
by public transportation and private car. The annual number of journeys
is used because it is not influenced by periodic variations in travel. The
metrics of kWh/year/person can be linked to the energy performance of
buildings. The results from the mobility choices model can be interpreted
from yearly energy use in buildings (roughly 5000-6000
kWh/year/person) or with average CO2 emissions from transportation
(1.7t/year/person). Carbon emissions are crucial in the environmental
programmes of the municipalities in Sweden.
Figure 39: Energy use and CO2 emissions based on the modal share
estimation by mobility choices model. Note. An average person living in a
50-square-meter apartment uses 5000-6000 kWh/year for heating and
electricity. The average CO2 emissions from transportation are
1.7t/year/person.
83
The mobility choices model visualises information about sustainable
mobility as heat maps and compares it to trip generation models and
actual modal shares (Figure 38). It produces reasonable results
considering the limitations of travel forecasting based on urban form and
accessibility factors. The forecasted modal shares correspond to the
actual modal shares in Jönköping and Haninge with a variation of 10%.
The error goes to 20% for walking in the downtown or driving automobile
in the suburbs, but this can be explained by strong mobility cultures of
walking in downtowns and driving in suburbs. The heat maps showing
LoIs (Figure 35-37) illustrate problematic red spots and can be used to
identify areas within neighbourhoods that lack mobility choices. This can
contribute to increased awareness among architects, urban planners and
designers, municipal officials and developers to improve the integration
with walking, cycling and public transportation. The mobility choices
model is based on urban form and accessibility factors commonly used in
urbanist practices (density, building heights, building setbacks, street
widths, parking standards, walking radiuses and distance to transit,
access to different services, and so on).
The mobility choices model has several limitations that are important
to acknowledge when applying in practice. Firstly, the estimates are
approximated. Travel behaviour depends directly on personal
characteristics and the establishment of mobility cultures. In reality, the
actual modal shares are produced by market segmentation (Anable,
2005; Prillwitz & Barr, 2011) and by how different mobility classes
perceive the travel affordances in urban form. Figure 40 shows how
different mobility classes would perceive the mobility choices. The
presence of flâneurs, cycling advocates, bus enthusiasts or train spotters
and dedicated motorists in the neighbourhoods would skew the modal
share towards their preferred transportation modes despite the
environmental preconditions to travel. For example, Torpa/Söder would
attract pedestrians and cyclists while Tenhult would be inhabited with
dedicated motorists.
84
Figure 40: How would different mobility classes (flâneurs, cycling
advocates, bus or rail nerds, green travellers, rational agents and
dedicated motorists) perceive mobility choices in Jönköping and
Stockholm.
Secondly, the methodology of the mobility choices model builds upon
theory of environmental perception and sustainability assessments
(composite indicators and certification systems). The embedded
85
affordances in urban forms presented as sustainable mobility indicators
in the mobility choices model create complex measures for integration of
urban form with walking, cycling, public transportation and private cars.
The sustainable mobility indicators and weights assigned are somewhat
subjective and arbitrary. Therefore, the level of integration calculation in
the equation and the modal shares estimations are also arbitrary. The
mobility choices model can be useful despite the limitation of complexity
and approximations, since it aims to provide two types of information. It
provides direct information about sustainable mobility in a very concise
form (modal shares, transportation energy use in kWh/year/person and
carbon emission in t CO2/year/person), but it also shows the complex
composition of urban form and accessibility factors as fundamental to
modal shares forecasts.
Thirdly, the mobility choices model should not be understood as a
final product, but as a framework to communicate knowledge about the
complex links between urban form and transportation systems among
actors and stakeholders in urban development processes. There is no
universally accepted definition of sustainable mobility or agreement on
how to measure it. The sustainable mobility indicators should reflect
upon and continuously develop alongside new transportation and
environmental policies (Innes, 1990; Innes & Booher, 2000). This implies
a continuous process of choosing and composing factors, negotiations
and fine-tuning of the models and measures. The mobility choices model
should be conceived furthermore as a research agenda about how specific
urban form and accessibility factors commonly used in urbanist practice
influence modal shares. It should reflect empirical knowledge and tend to
be concise and communicative. In the end, there should be an emphasis
on morphogenetic processes to catalyse sustainable development instead
of blindly following sustainable mobility indicators that describe ideal
urban patterns. The mobility choices model should be part of a
morphologically informed urbanism that focusses on transportation
morphogenesis or evolutionary incremental processes in achieving good
urban forms driven by urban visions, instead of fabricating good forms
based on blueprints of good urban designs (Scheer, 2010).
86
CONCLUSIONS
This section presents the main conclusions and directions for future
research. The three following subsections follow the order of the RQs.
Transforming cities and improving public transportation
for sustainable mobility
To answer RQ1, the Licentiate Thesis looks at Swedish urbanisation and
the emergence of neighbourhood types during transportation revolutions,
focusing on public transportation in the 19th century and the private
automobile in the 20th century. The Licentiate Thesis abstracts
morphological models of Swedish cities and neighbourhood types to
illustrate the urban transformation from the automobile-dependent
modern city to the postmodern city with multimodal sustainable
neighbourhoods. The Licentiate Thesis also identifies problems with
application and limitations with new stereotypical European sustainable
city neighbourhood, exemplified by Hammarby Sjöstad. The preservation
of neighbourhoods that emerged during the modernisation of Swedish
cities and ascendency of the automobile and the multiplication and
dispersal of the prototype Hammarby Sjöstad (not always along new BRT
or LRT systems) is problematic to holistically approach sustainable
mobility and integration with walking, cycling and public transportation.
The lack of mobility choices in Swedish modern city neighbourhoods is
not addressed, whereas many of these new sustainable neighbourhoods
are located on waterfronts, on hills or isolated in forests where it is
difficult to provide good and direct public transportation services.
The Licentiate Thesis offers a solution to address these problems by
creating a broader urbanist framework to understand scales in the
interaction between public transportation and urban form. The Licentiate
Thesis creates a typology of four (ideal) urban patterns for integration of
public transportation in cities and proposes to use this typology to
transform the problematic neighbourhood types by introducing new
busways and other fully segregated public transportation infrastructures.
Without incremental transformation of all neighbourhood types and
interconnecting all the neighbourhoods in urban regions, it is difficult to
expect radical changes in the modal shift towards more sustainable
transportation modes. Elements of these ideal urban patterns are
integrated in the mobility choices model in Paper 9 that aims to inform
urban transformation towards better integration of transit systems.
While the Licentiate Thesis looks at scales of neighbourhoods and
urban regions, Paper 7 focuses on urban space and the integration of
transit stops and street spaces. Visual proximity is an important
parameter that is often neglected. Viewsheds matter more for integration
87
with public transportation than walksheds and is equally important as
regional connectivity (this is actualised in the weighting of the factors in
Paper 9). Integration with public transportation happens as a
morphological process in visual proximity of transit stops (Paper 7) and
through the creation of urban nuclei and corridors by regional public
transportation nodes (Paper 2 and Paper 3 in the Licentiate Thesis).
Additionally, Paper 7 discusses TOD as a process of commercialisation
and creating public spaces in visual proximity to transit. It also identifies
urban form elements in viewsheds that are important for integration with
public transportation systems (such as interaction of transit stops with
street spaces, commercial storefronts on the surrounding buildings, and
so on). Transit vehicles can be understood as mobile public spaces. Some
buses and trains hold density of up to eight persons per square meter,
(potentially) making them the densest public spaces in a city. The transit
stops as entrances to the densest public spaces integrate with the city by
surrounding themselves with commercial activity (about
commercialisation of urban forms see Davis, 2009; Narvaez, 2015). The
creation of public spaces around regional transit nodes and along transit
corridors, would allow for smooth passage via a comfortable ride in an
(automated) public transportation vehicle.
TOD as policy in European cities aims to redesign entire metropolitan
areas to integrate with public transportation systems (Bertolini, et al.,
2012). This includes not only major train stations, but also small bus
stops. The doctoral thesis presents urban patterns of public
transportation cities and commercialisation in a context of incremental
urban change and the creation of centres, urban nuclei and corridors
(Alexander et al., 1987). With this alternative approach to TOD and
integration of public transportation, every transit stop has the potential to
create a commercial core within a 100-meter visual range. Urban
designers working with TOD should focus on the viewsheds in proximity
to transit stops. They should design to facilitate flexibility for processes of
commercialisation. Depending on the type of the transit stop, the level of
transit service (high speed and frequency, distance between stations,
good comfort etc.) and arrangement of public spaces around the transit
stop, it is possible to create local corridors or a sequence of regional
nodes/nuclei. To do so, urban designers must consider specific local
conditions when they apply to TOD pattern typology. TOD involves the
convergence of public transportation (vehicles, transit operations with
different levels of service as speed, frequency, reliability etc., right-ofways, transit stops, loading platforms, etc.); elements and patterns of
urban form (neighbourhoods, land uses, public and private spaces,
blocks, streets, street frontages, lots, buildings, etc.) and interfaces
88
(between transit stops, transit stop to street, street to building, etc.). Their
interaction creates diverse contexts and patterns. Alexander et al. (1977)
argue that each city has a distinctive set of patterns. The TOD pattern
typology on multiple scales must relate to city-specific neighbourhood
types and pattern morphogenesis. By acknowledging this, the
neighbourhoods and their transit stops will grow organically and catalyse
sustainable development.
Density and neighbourhood type, urban design and
typologies
The Licentiate Thesis and Paper 8 focus on RQ2 and the effect of urban
form variables such as Density and Diversity on travel on two scales. The
effect of urban form (as population density) at the regional scale shows
that the values follow a trendline. Denser regions produce higher shares
of public transportation. The chart also shows that population density
increased slightly in Stockholm, but the share of public transportation
remained roughly the same, whereas in the other regions, especially
Skåne (Malmö) and Västra Götaland (Gothenburg) the population density
remained the same while the share of public transportation increased
slightly in the last 14 years. Paper 8 analyses the effect of Density and
Diversity on travel at a neighbourhood scale. The results show that
Density as number of residents and jobs in a standard 400-meter
walkshed around bus stop explains 30% in the variation of number of
passengers boarding at the bus stops as responsive variable. More
residents and jobs in the neighbourhoods surrounding transit stops are
likely to produce more passengers on public transportation systems.
These results also correspond to what is known and empirically proven in
other studies on Density in Sweden. Residential density explains roughly
one-third of the variation in transit ridership (Holmberg, 2013). The
measures for Diversity show no significant effect.
There are two problems with implementing Density in urbanist
practices. Density is ambiguous in its relationship to urban form (Pont &
Haupt, 2007). It is possible to develop dense and diverse neighbourhoods
that are non-walkable, far from public transportation, and so on.
Secondly, the research on D-variables such as density can include many
variables (e.g. Park, et al., 2015). Researchers often run very complex
multivariate models to analyse the interaction between transportation
and land use. This can cause information overload among practitioners
that need to control many parameters including age, age groups, types of
jobs, and so on that cannot be controlled. To address these problems,
Paper 8 also analyses land uses and neighbourhood type as categorical
variables that incorporate several D-variables. The results, descriptive
89
statistics and the scatter plots reveal intervals, maximum and minimum
numbers of bus passengers generated by the sum of residents and jobs.
These intervals can be useful especially in Swedish municipalities that
already use neighbourhood types in urbanist practice (SSBK, 1997; 2000;
MSBK, 2001). Neighbourhood types in Sweden as many urban
morphologists argue (Rådberg, 1988; Rådberg & Friberg, 1996; Engström
et al., 1988; Engström & Legeby, 2001; Engström, 2008; Engström, 2018)
do not only show significant statistical explanations for D-variables, but
they have particular social meaning and status. Arguably, they also create
and support mobility classes such as dedicated motorists, cycling
advocates, bus enthusiasts or train spotters, green travellers, and so on.
Neighbourhood type is similar to the land use categories in the Trip
Generation Manual (ITE, 2012). There are also discussions about
improvement of manuals on trip generation (Clifton et al., 2015). There
are fewer neighbourhood types than land uses and they more closely
resemble societal conceptualisations and urbanist practices.
Paper 8 juxtaposes two morphological approaches, typo-morphology
and urban analytics, and presents a new methodology to investigate the
effect of urban form on travel. The typo-morphological and urban
analytical approaches complement one another. Typo-morphology is
useful to analyse the historical emergence and evolution of urban patterns
such as neighbourhood types and their underlying urban form elements,
patterns of streets, plot divisions and buildings. This knowledge is useful
in an urban design when aggregating urban form elements into a
neighbourhood type, but also its social context. However, there are
limitations in using typo-morphology both in analysis and practice. The
typo-morphological studies require in-depth knowledge of the historical
evolution of the city and neighbourhood types (elaborated in the
Licentiate Thesis). A neighbourhood in reality is variation of an idealised
type. Neighbourhoods are similar but not identical and often include a
combination of multiple types. This poses difficulties in classification.
Urban design can be guided by typologies as a theory or doctrine of types
(Steadman, 2014) and this requires critical understanding. The tendency
when using abstractions is to be general and present a select number of
generic types (Alexander, 1979) and this does not embody the complexity
of neighbourhoods. If a historical pattern of a neighbourhood (e.g. a
railway suburb of the early 20th century) is replicated as a new TOD
today, the neighbourhood type will be different in the historical context
and will affect age groups, social grouping, and so on, despite similarities
in neighbourhood design, residential and employment densities.
Typologies are historical facts, whereas the future is here to be invented
(Gabor, 1964; Batty, 2018). The typologies (of neighbourhoods and public
90
transportation systems) are morphological information, an urban vision
in dynamic processes of urban morphogenesis or evolutionary
incremental processes in achieving good urban forms (Scheer, 2010). The
future can be invented without replicating historical urban patterns.
Analysing urban forms and informing sustainable
mobility
While the Licentiate Thesis worked with typologies to inform urbanist
practices towards the transformation of cities, Paper 9 proposes a
mobility choices model to address RQ3. The mobility choices model
creates sustainable mobility indicators from ideal urban patterns and
typologies of walking, cycling, public transportation and motor cities. The
sustainable mobility indicators are furthermore based on the research
about the effect of urban form on travel (included in the Licentiate Thesis,
Paper 7 and Paper 8). Paper 9 combines different urban and accessibility
factors into a travel forecasting model that predicts and visualizes modal
shares, energy use and carbon emissions from transportation as heat
maps. This links to ongoing environmental goals and programmes in
Swedish cities. Paper 9 also selects three typical neighbourhoods
(Jönköping Södra/Torpa is type 3, Tenhult is type 7 and Handen is type
10 in Figure 25). This connects the mobility choices model with the
evolution and transportation morphogenesis of Swedish cities in the
Licentiate Thesis. The Doctoral Thesis starts with urbanisation and
neighbourhood types, follows their integration with different
transportation modes to dissect their ideal urban patterns and analyse
mobility choices in typical neighbourhoods and finally discusses
problems and possible solutions.
The mobility choices model makes predictions and produces
reasonable results with identifiable errors that are common for this kind
of model. The mobility choices model can be used to identify
unsustainable mobility patterns in existing neighbourhoods and new
developments. The mobility choices model directly informs sustainable
mobility in a very concise form (modal shares, transportation energy use
in kWh/year/person and carbon emission in t CO2/year/person) and
shows a complex set of urban form and accessibility factors as
background for the modal shares forecasts. Both concise and complex
information is needed to illuminate the complex link between urban form
and sustainable mobility. In addition, the methodology can be used to
analyse alternative scenarios to redesign sprawling Swedish
neighbourhoods into more sustainable urban forms. Visualizing this
information about environmental performance and carbon implication of
transportation has a potential to trigger a virtuous cycle of transforming
91
neighbourhoods, catalysing sustainable development to better integrate
walking, cycling and public transportation. Improving walkability and
introducing cycling and transit infrastructures can help to lower parking
standards that are often a crucial parameter in conventional zoning and
planning practice. In a vicious circle for the automobile, less parking
would produce more walking, cycling and transit use and contribute to
decrease in carbon emissions. The problems of poor integration between
walking, cycling and public transportation is not always visible, especially
to motorists. All neighbourhoods show 100% integration with the private
automobile (Figure 35-37) and motorists would not see any mobility
problems in neighbourhoods that have available parking spaces.
The sustainable mobility indicators and the application of the
mobility choices model involves a particular scope and has specific
limitations. The forecasts of the mobility choices model are approximated
and adjusted to identify the lack of mobility choices. The mobility choices
model does not predict actual or accurate modal shares, but rather
informs the integration of walking, cycling, public transportation and
private car. Travel depends on how individuals choose to travel.
Individuals in car-oriented societies can neglect walkable or transitsupportive environments and vice versa, public mobility cultures can
boost the use of public transportation despite poor integration of transit
stops. Ultimately, the mobility choices model should not be understood as
a final product of fixed sustainable mobility indicators, but as a
framework to communicate knowledge about the complex link between
urban form and transportation systems among actors and stakeholders in
the urban planning, design and development processes towards more
sustainable cities.
Directions for future research
The Doctoral Thesis juxtaposes urban form, (public) transportation
systems and sustainability. Future research can take multiple directions.
One direction is to make typo-morphological and analytical studies (e.g.
Paper 8) in other Swedish cities to increase the empirical knowledge on
the effect of neighbourhood types on modal shares. This new research will
show variations between cities (plotted on Figure 2). Another direction is
to apply the knowledge about neighbourhood types to inform urban
development. The Licentiate Thesis proposed a BRT-TOD approach
where BRT works as a mini metro bus system, a rapid transit system with
automated super buses (presented in a Swedish summary, Stojanovski &
Kottenhoff, 2013). The regional vision includes quick links, orbital
connections, dense regional nodes and local corridors (Figure 41A). It
considers the effect of Swedish neighbourhood types on bus patronage
92
(neighbourhood scale in Figure 41B). This highlights the importance of
integrating transit systems in visual proximity (street space scale in
Figure 41C). This vision is a viable option for transforming small and
medium sized Swedish cities into transit metropolises (Cervero, 1998).
Figure 41: Vision for BRT-TOD metropolis in Swedish cities (Stojanovski
& Kottenhoff, 2013)
93
Further research could examine the practical application of the proposed
typologies and vision to transform the Swedish cities for higher shares of
public transportation. Many BRT initiatives and negotiations in Sweden
fail or are very slow. In the last 5 years, there are almost no new BRT
initiatives. Very few politicians, bureaucrats or urban and regional
planners can escape from the poor status and public image of the bus.
Future BRT-TOD initiatives must consider the influence of automation
on bus systems. Simultaneously, the bus industry has to redesign the
standard and create mobile public spaces for the wired world (discussed
in Paper 1, see https://www.skanetrafiken.se/konceptbussen).
Paper 7 presents an alternative TOD approach that examines the
morphology and processes of creation of public spaces in visual proximity
to transit stops. This would require additional empirical research on
walking to transit stops within viewsheds and walksheds. In addition, it
would be helpful to study pedestrian movement around typical transit
stops and how it influences commercialisation patterns in different types
of neighbourhoods.
Paper 9 introduces a mobility choices model to inform sustainable
mobility. There are several directions for future research to improve and
apply the mobility choices model and the predictions of modal shares,
carbon emissions and energy use in transportation. The methodology for
parking standards is arbitrary (Shoup, 2011) and the information about
good integration of the city with multimodal transportation systems can
decrease the need of parking and driving. One application is to develop
methods to negotiate parking standards based on good integration with
walking, cycling and public transportation. Another direction is to
improve the methodology of sustainable mobility indicators by setting a
detailed research agenda. The model identifies specific urban form factors
(urban design elements) and sets a research agenda about how these
specific design elements (building setbacks, building heights, and so on)
influence the modal shares of walking, cycling public transportation and
private automobile. The model predications can be verified and calibrated
with travel surveys and automated mode detection mobile apps. In the
long term, the goal is to integrate sustainable mobility indicators with
existing municipal GIS to automate parts of the analysis. The mobility
choices model can be integrated into an urban design digital tool that
would revolve around the concept of City Information Modelling (CIM).
The CIM toolbox like the mobility choices model uses the morphological
structure and representation presented in this Doctoral Thesis
(Stojanovski, 2013; 2018b). Another possibility is to create a web
application to automatically recognize urban design elements based on
GIS data and run automated analyses.
94
REFERENCES
Adolphson, M. (2009). Estimating a polycentric urban structure. Case
study: Urban changes in the Stockholm region 1991–2004. Journal of
Urban Planning and Development, 135(1), 19-30.
Adolphson, M., Johansson, M., & Van Well, L. (2006). Polycentrism,
monocentrism och regionförstoring: Alternativa och/eller
komplementära utvecklingsförlopp. Stockholm: Kungliga Tekniska
högskolan.
Albrechts, L. (2004). Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined.
Environment and Planning B: Planning and design, 31(5), 743-758.
Aldred, R., & Jungnickel, K. (2014). Why culture matters for transport
policy: the case of cycling in the UK. Journal of Transport
Geography, 34, 78-87.
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language:
towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Alexander, C. (1979). The timeless way of building. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Alexander, C., Neis H., Anninou A., & King I. (1987). A new theory of
urban design. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anable, J. (2005). Complacent car addicts or aspiring environmentalists?
Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory.
Transport Policy, 12(1), 65-78.
Ash, A., & Thrift, N. (2002). Cities: reimagining the urban. Malden:
Polity.
Aureli, P. V. (2011). City as Political Form: Four Archetypes of Urban
Transformation. Architectural Design, 81(1), 32-37.
Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport
policy, 15(2), 73-80.
Banister, D. (2011). The trilogy of distance, speed and time. Journal of
Transport Geography, 19(4), 950-959.
Balcombe, R., Mackett, R., Paulley, N., Preston, J., Shires, J., Titheridge,
Wardman, M. & White, P. (2004). The demand for public transport:
a practical guide. Transport Research Laboratory.
Barras, R. (2009). Building cycles: growth and instability. Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Barton, H. (ed.) (2000). Sustainable communities: the potential for econeighbourhoods. London: Earthscan.
Batty, M. (1976). Urban Modelling: Algorithms. Calibrations,
Predictions. London: Cambridge University Press.
Batty, M. (2005). Cities and complexity: understanding cities with
cellular automata, agent-based models, and fractals. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
95
Batty, M. (2013). The new science of cities. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Batty, M. (2017). A science of cities: Prologue to a science of planning. In
Haselsberger, B. (ed.) Encounters in planning thought: 16
autobiographical essays from key thinkers in spatial planning. New
York: Routledge.
Batty, M. (2018). Inventing future cities. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Batty, M. & Marshall, S. (2012). The Origins of Complexity Theory in
Cities and Planning. In Portugali J., Meyer H., Stolk E., & Tan E.
(eds.) Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer, 21-45.
Becker, G. S. (1965). A Theory of the Allocation of Time. The Economic
Journal, 493-517.
Becker, G. S. (1962). Irrational Behavior and Economic Theory. Journal
of Political Economy, 70(1), 1-13.
Beesley, M. E. (1965). The value of time spent in travelling: some new
evidence. Economica, 32(126), 174-185.
Bell, S. & Morse, S. (2008). Sustainability indicators, measuring the
immeasurable? London: Earthscan.
Bell, S. & Morse, S. (eds.) (2018). Routledge handbook of sustainability
indicators. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Ben-Akiva, M. (1973). Structure of Passenger Demand Models (Doctoral
Thesis, MIT).
Ben-Akiva, M.E. & Lerman, S.R. (1985). Discrete choice analysis: theory
and application to travel demand. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Bentley, I., Alcock, A., Murrain, P., McGlynn, S. & Sith G., (1985).
Responsive environments: a manual for designers. London: The
Architectural Press.
Bertolini, L. (1996). Nodes and places: complexities of railway station
redevelopment. European Planning Studies, 4(3), 331-345.
Bertolini, L. (1999). Spatial development patterns and public transport:
the application of an analytical model in the Netherlands. Planning
Practice and Research, 14(2), 199-210.
Bertolini, L. (2017). Planning the mobile metropolis: transport for
people, places and the planet. London, England: Palgrave.
Bertolini, L., Curtis, C., & Renne, J. (2012). Station area projects in
Europe and beyond: Towards transit oriented development?. Built
Environment, 38(1), 31-50.
Ben-Joseph, E. (2005). The code of the city: standards and the hidden
language of place making. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Birkhamshaw, A. J., & Whitehand, J. W. R. (2012). Conzenian urban
morphology and the character areas of planners and residents. Urban
Design International, 17 (1): 4-17.
96
Boarnet, M. G. (2011). A broader context for land use and travel behavior,
and a research agenda. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 77(3), 197-213.
Boarnet, M. G., & Compin, N. S. (1999). Transit-oriented development in
San Diego County: The incremental implementation of a planning
idea. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(1), 80-95.
Boarnet, M. G., & Crane, R. (2001). Travel by design: The influence of
urban form on travel. Oxford University Press.
Boarnet, M. G., Joh, K., Siembab, W., Fulton, W., & Nguyen, M. T. (2011).
Retrofitting the suburbs to increase walking: Evidence from a landuse-travel study. Urban studies, 48(1), 129-159.
Bourdieu, P. (1979). Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of
taste. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The Social Space and the Genesis of Groups, Theory
and Society, 14(6), 723-744.
Boyce, D. E., & Lundqvist, L. (1987). Network equilibrium models of
urban location and travel choices: alternative formulations for the
Stockholm region. Papers in Regional Science, 61(1), 93-104.
Breheny, M. (ed.) (1992a) Sustainable Development and Urban Form.
London: Pion.
Breheny, M. (1992b). The compact city: an introduction. Built
Environment, 18(4), 240-246.
Breheny, M. (1996). Centrists, decentrists and compromisers: views on
the future of urban form. Jenks, M., Burton, E. & Williams, K. (eds.)
The compact city: a sustainable urban form?. London: E & FN Spon,
13-35.
Brotchie, J. F. (1984). Technological change and urban form.
Environment and Planning A, 16(5), 583-596.
Brotchie, J. F., Batty, M., Blakely. E., Hall, P. & Newton, P. (1995). Cities
in competition. Melbourne: Longman.
Brotchie, J. F., Anderson, M., Gipps, P. G., & McNamara, C. (1996).
Urban Productivity and Sustainability—Impacts of Technological
Change. In Hayashi, Y. & Roy, J. (eds.) Transport, Land-use and the
Environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 81-99.
Brynielsson, T. (1976). Stegvis utveckling mot attraktiv kollektivtrafik
(Doctoral Thesis, Chalmers tekniska högskola).
Buehler, R., & Pucher, J. (2012). Cycling to work in 90 large American
cities: new evidence on the role of bike paths and lanes.
Transportation, 39(2), 409-432.
Burgess, E. W. (1925). The growth of the city: an introduction to a
research project. in Park R.E. (ed). The city. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. 47-62.
97
Carl, P. (2011). Type, field, culture, praxis. Architectural Design, 81(1),
38-45.
Cataldi, G., Maffei, G. L., & Vaccaro, P. (2002) Saverio Muratori and the
Italian school of planning typology, Urban Morphology 6(1), 3-14.
Cataldi, G. (2003). From Muratori to Caniggia: the origins and
development of the Italian school of design typology, Urban
Morphology, 7(1), 19-34.
Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology,
community, and the American dream. New York: Princeton
Architectural Press.
Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Handy, S. L. (2009). Examining the impacts
of residential self-selection on travel behaviour: a focus on empirical
findings. Transport reviews, 29(3), 359-395.
Carmona, M., de Magalhaes, C., & Edwards, M. (2002). What value urban
design?. Urban design international, 7(2), 63-81.
Carmona, M. Heath, T., Oc, T. & Tiesdell S. (2003). Public places - urban
spaces: the dimensions of urban design. Boston, Mass.: Architectural
Press.
Castells, M. (1996). The information age: economy, society and culture.
The rise of the network society, Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
Cervero, R. (1989). America’s suburban centers: the land-usetransportation link. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Cervero, R. (1991). Congestion relief: the land use alternative. Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 10(2), 119-130.
Cervero, R. (1996). California's transit village movement. Journal of
Public Transportation, 1(1), 103-130.
Cervero, R. (1997). Paradigm shift: from automobility to accessibility
planning. Urban Futures, 22, 9-20.
Cervero, R. (1998). The transit metropolis: a global enquiry.
Washington: Island Press.
Cervero, R., & Gorham, R. (1995). Commuting in transit versus
automobile neighborhoods. Journal of the American planning
Association, 61(2), 210-225.
Cervero R. & Kockelman K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: density,
diversity, and design, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 2(3), 199-219.
Cervero, R. (2007). Transit-oriented development's ridership bonus: a
product of self-selection and public policies. Environment and
planning A, 39(9), 2068-2085.
Cervero R. & Radisch C. (1996). Travel choices in pedestrian versus
automobile oriented neighborhoods, Transport policy, 3(3), 127-41.
Cervero, R. & Duncan. M. (2002). Residential Self Selection and Rail
98
Commuting: A Nested Logit Analysis. UCTC Working Paper 604,
Berkeley, California: University of California Transportation Center,
http://www.uctc.net/papers/604.pdf.
Cervero, R., Sarmiento, O. L., Jacoby, E., Gomez, L. F., & Neiman, A.
(2009). Influences of built environments on walking and cycling:
lessons from Bogotá. International Journal of Sustainable
Transportation, 3(4), 203-226.
Cervero, R., & Sullivan, C. (2011). Green TODs: marrying transit-oriented
development and green urbanism. International journal of
sustainable development and world ecology, 18(3), 210-218.
Chatman, D. G. (2013). Does TOD need the T? On the importance of
factors other than rail access. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 79(1), 17-31.
Chorus P. & Bertolini L. (2011). An application of the node place model to
explore the spatial development dynamics of station areas in Tokyo.
Journal of Transport and Land Use, 4 (1), 45-58.
Choay, F. (1997). The rule and the model: on the theory of architecture
and urbanism. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Christaller, W. (1966 [1933]). Central places in southern Germany.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
City of Malmö (2009). Environmental Programme for the City of Malmö
2009 – 2020. Available on:
https://malmo.se/download/18.6301369612700a2db9180006215/14
91304408540/Environmental+Programme+for+the+City+of+Malm
%C3%B6+2009-2020.pdf
City of Malmö. (2016). Sustainable urban mobility plan. Available on:
http://malmo.se/download/18.16ac037b154961d0287384d/1491301
288704/Sustainable+urban+mobility+plan%252528TROMP%25252
9_ENG.pdf
City of Stockholm (2017). The City of Stockholm’s Environmental Work.
Available on:
http://miljobarometern.stockholm.se/content/docs/tema/Environm
ental-Work-Stockholm-2017.pdf
Clifton, K., Currans, K., & Muhs, C. (2015). Adjusting ITE’s Trip
Generation Handbook for urban context. Journal of Transport and
Land Use, 8(1), 5-29.
Crane, R. (1996a). On form versus function: Will the new urbanism
reduce traffic, or increase it?. Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 15(2), 117-126.
Crane, R. (2000). The influence of urban form on travel: an interpretive
review. Journal of Planning Literature, 15(1), 3-23.
Crane, R. (1996b). Cars and drivers in the new suburbs: linking access to
99
travel in neotraditional planning. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 62(1), 51-65.
Crane, R., & Crepeau, R. (1998). Does neighborhood design influence
travel?: A behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data1.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 3(4),
225-238.
Cullen, G. (1961). The Concise Townscape. London: Architectural Press.
Cullen, G. (1967). Notations 1-4. The Architects’ Journal (supplements)
Currie, G. (2006). Bus transit oriented development—strengths and
challenges relative to rail. Journal of Public Transportation, 9(4), 121.
Curtis, C. (2008). Planning for sustainable accessibility: The
implementation challenge. Transport Policy, 15(2), 104-112.
Curtis, C. (2012a). Delivering the D in transit-oriented development:
Examining the town planning challenge. Journal of Transport and
Land Use, 5(3), 83–99.
Curtis, C. (2012b). Transitioning to transit-oriented development: the
case of Perth, Western Australia. Urban policy and research, 30(3),
275-292.
Curtis, C., & Scheurer, J. (2010). Planning for sustainable accessibility:
Developing tools to aid discussion and decision-making. Progress in
Planning, 74(2), 53-106.
Curtis, C., Renne, J.L. and Bertolini, L. (ed.) 2009. Transit oriented
development: making it happen. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate
Publishing.
D’Acci, L. (2019). Aesthetical cognitive perceptions of urban street form.
Pedestrian preferences towards straight or curvy route shapes.
Journal of Urban Design, 1-17.
Dempsey, N. (2010). Revisiting the compact city?. Built Environment,
36(1), 4-8.
Dempsey, N., & Jenks, M. (2010). The future of the compact city. Built
Environment, 36(1), 116-121.
De Groote, J., Van Ommeren, J., & Koster, H. R. (2016). Car ownership
and residential parking subsidies: Evidence from Amsterdam.
Economics of Transportation, 6, 25-37.
Dennis, K. & Urry, J. (2009). After the car. Cambridge: Polity.
Dittmar, H. & Ohland, G. (eds.) 2004. The new transit town: best
practices in transit-oriented development. Washington: Island Press.
Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., Metcalfe, R., & Vlaev, I.
(2012). Influencing behaviour: The mindspace way. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 33(1), 264-277.
Duany, A, & Plater-Zyberk E. (1991). Towns and Town-Making
100
Principles. New York: Rizzoli.
Duany, A., & Talen, E. (2002). Transect planning. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 68(3), 245-266.
EC. (1990). Green paper on the urban environment. EC.
EC. (1997). Towards an urban agenda in the European Union. EC
EC. (1998). Response of the EC Expert Group on the Urban Environment
on the Communication Towards an Urban Agenda in the European
Union. EC.
EC, (2011). White Paper 8011. Roadmap to a Single European Transport
Area - Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system.
EC.
Ehlers, E. (2011). City models in theory and practice: a cross-cultural
perspective. Urban Morphology. 15(2), 97-119.
Eliasson, J., & Mattsson, L. G. (2000). A model for integrated analysis of
household location and travel choices. Transportation Research Part
A: Policy and Practice, 34(5), 375-394.
Eliasson, J., & Mattsson, L. G. (2001). Transport and location effects of
road pricing: a simulation approach. Journal of Transport Economics
and Policy, 35(3), 417-456.
Emanuel, M. (2012). Trafikslag på undantag: cykeltrafiken i Stockholm
1930-1980. (Doctoral Thesis, Kungliga tekniska högskolan).
Energimyndigheten (Swedish Energy Agency) (2017), Transportsektorns
energianvändning 2016. Available on:
https://www.energimyndigheten.se/globalassets/statistik/transport/
transportsektorns-energianvandning-2016.pdf
Engström C.J, Lindqvist A., Lagbo E. & Landahl, G. (1988). Svensk tätort.
Stockholm: Svenskakommunförbundet.
Engstrom C.J, & Legeby F. (2001). Scenariostudie om framtidsstaden.
Göteborg: Chalmers tekniska högskola.
Engstrom C.J. (2008). Kunskapsdriven näringsutveckling och
stadsomvandling. in Cars, G., & Engström, C. J. (eds.).
Stadsregioners utvecklingskraft-trender och nya perspektiv.
Stockholm: Kungliga tekniska högskola.
Engström C.J. (2018). Kunskapsunderlag till betänkande om
transportplaner inom Kommittén Samordning för bostadsbyggande.
Available at; http://www.sou.gov.se/wpcontent/uploads/2018/04/Kunskapsunderlag-omtransportplaner.pdf
Ewing, R. (1995). Measuring transportation performance. Transportation
quarterly, 49(1), 91-104.
Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2001). Travel and the built environment: a
synthesis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
101
Transportation Research Board, (1780), 87-114.
Ewing, R. & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the Built Environment.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 265-294.
Ewing, R. & Cervero, R. (2017). Does Compact Development Make People
Drive Less? The Answer Is Yes, Journal of the American Planning
Association, 83(1), 19-25.
Ewing, R. Greenwald, M.J. Zhang, M. Bogaerts, M. & Greene, W. (2013).
Predicting transportation outcomes for LEED projects. Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 33(3), 1-15
Ewing, R., & Handy, S. (2009). Measuring the unmeasurable: urban
design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban design, 14(1),
65-84.
Ewing, R., King, M. R., Raudenbush, S., & Clemente, O. J. (2005).
Turning highways into main streets: Two innovations in planning
methodology. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(3),
269-282.
Fainstein, S. S. (2005). Cities and diversity: should we want it? Can we
plan for it?. Urban affairs review, 41(1), 3-19.
Fischer, C. S. (1975). Toward a subcultural theory of urbanism. American
Journal of Sociology, 80(6), 1319-1341.
Fischer, C.S. (1982). To dwell among friends: personal networks in town
and city. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Fischer, C.S. (1984). The urban experience. (2. ed.) San Diego: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Fischer, C. S. (1995). The subcultural theory of urbanism: A twentiethyear assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 101(3), 543-577.
Finnveden, G., & Moberg, Å. (2005). Environmental systems analysis
tools–an overview. Journal of cleaner production, 13(12), 1165-1173.
Flink, J.J. (1975). The car culture. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Foletta, N., & Henderson, J. (2016). Low Car(bon) Communities:
Inspiring car-free and car-lite urban futures. New York: Routledge.
Forsyth, A., & Krizek, K. J. (2010). Promoting walking and bicycling:
assessing the evidence to assist planners. Built Environment, 36(4),
429-446.
Forsyth, A., & Krizek, K. (2011). Urban design: is there a distinctive view
from the bicycle?. Journal of Urban Design, 16(4), 531-549.
Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to
action. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press.
Friedmann, J. (2017). Planning as a vocation: the journey so far. In
Haselsberger, B. (ed.) Encounters in planning thought: 16
autobiographical essays from key thinkers in spatial planning. New
York: Routledge.
102
Franck, K.A. (1994). Types are us. In Franck, K.A. and Schneekloth, L.H.
(eds.). Ordering space: types in architecture and design. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold, 345-372
Franck, K.A. & Schneekloth, L.H. (1994). Ordering space: types in
architecture and design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Friedman, M., & Savage, L. J. (1948). The utility analysis of choices
involving risk. Journal of Political Economy, 56(4), 279-304.
Gabor, D. (1964). Inventing the future. New York: Penguin.
Gauthier, P. (2005). Conceptualizing the social construction of urban and
architectural form through the typological process. Urban
morphology, 9(2), 83-93.
Gauthier, P., & Gilliland, J. (2006). Mapping urban morphology: a
classification scheme for interpreting contributions to the study of
urban form. Urban Morphology, 10(1), 41-50.
Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings: using public space. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Washington DC: Island Press.
Geurs, K. T., & Van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use
and transport strategies: review and research directions. Journal of
Transport Geography, 12(2), 127-140.
Gibson, J.J. (1950). The perception of the visual world. Cambridge,
Mass.: Riverside Press.
Gibson, J.J. (1977). The theory of affordances, in Shaw R. & Bransford J.
(eds). Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
and Sons, 67–82.
Gibson, J.J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology matters. Annual Review of
Psychology. 65(1), 541–79.
Goethe, J.W.V. (1988). Scientific studies. New York: Suhrkamp.
Grengs, J., Levine, J., Shen, Q., & Shen, Q. (2010). Intermetropolitan
comparison of transportation accessibility: Sorting out mobility and
proximity in San Francisco and Washington, DC. Journal of Planning
Education and Research, 29(4), 427-443.
Graham, S. & Marvin, S. (1996). Telecommunications and the city:
electronic spaces, urban places. London: Routledge.
Griffiths, B., & Curtis, C. (2017). Effectiveness of transit oriented
development in reducing car use: Case Study of Subiaco, Western
Australia. Urban Policy and Research, 35(4), 391-408.
Gullberg, A., Höjer, M., & Pettersson, R. (2007). Bilder av
framtidsstaden – Tid och rum för hållbar utveckling. Eslöv: Brutus
Östlings Bokförlag Symposion.
103
Guthrie, A., & Fan, Y. 2016. Developers' perspectives on transit-oriented
development. Transport Policy, 51, 103-114.
Gärling, T., Fujii, S., & Boe, O. (2001). Empirical tests of a model of
determinants of script-based driving choice. Transportation
Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 4(2), 89-102.
Gärling, T., & Axhausen, K. W. (2003). Introduction: Habitual travel
choice. Transportation, 30(1), 1-11.
Haapio, A. (2012). Towards sustainable urban communities.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 32(1), 165-169.
Haapio, A., & Viitaniemi, P. (2008). A critical review of building
environmental assessment tools. Environmental impact assessment
review, 28(7), 469-482.
Hagson, A. (2004). Stads- och trafikplaneringens paradigm: en studie av
SCAFT 1968, dess förebilder och efterföljare (Doctoral Thesis,
Chalmers tekniska högskolan).
Hall, E.T. (1959). The silent language. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett
Publications Inc.
Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Anchor books.
Hall, A. C. (1997). Dealing with incremental change: an application of
urban morphology to design control. Journal of Urban Design, 2(3),
221-239.
Hall A. C. (2008). Bridging the gap: applying urban morphology to
successful planning practice, Urban Morphology, 12(1), 54-58
Hall, A. C. (2011). Design, not Density, of Urban Form as the Path to
Sustainability: An Examination of Examples Urban Green Space
Provision in Relation to Density. Available on: https://researchrepository.griffith.edu.au/bitstream/handle/10072/46141/77175_1.p
df
Hall, A.C. & Sanders, P. (2011). Morphological design control for largescale city development: a new proposal. Built Environment, 37, 427444.
Handy, S. (1996). Methodologies for exploring the link between urban
form and travel behavior. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 1(2), 151-165.
Handy, S.L., & Niemeier, D.A., (1997). Measuring accessibility: an
exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A,
29, 1175–1194.
Hansen, W. G. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the
American Institute of planners, 25(2), 73-76.
Harris, C. D., & Ullman, E. L. (1945). The nature of cities. The Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 242(1), 7-17.
Hilty, L. M., Arnfalk, P., Erdmann, L., Goodman, J., Lehmann, M., &
104
Wäger, P. A. (2006). The relevance of information and
communication technologies for environmental sustainability–a
prospective simulation study. Environmental Modelling & Software,
21(11), 1618-1629.
Holmberg, B. (1972). Samhällsplanering med hänsyn till kollektiv trafik:
inventering och analys av praxis. Stockholm: Byggforskningen.
Holmberg B. (1975). Fysisk struktur och busstrafikens ekonomi, in
Kollektivtrafik i tätort: Bilagor till betänkande av utredningen om
kollektivtrafik i tätorter. Stockholm: Statens offentliga utredningar.
Holmberg, B. (2013). Ökad andel kollektivtrafik-hur?: en
kunskapssammanställning. Lunds universitet, LTH: Lund.
Hooi, E., & Pojani, D. (2019). Urban design quality and walkability: an
audit of suburban high streets in an Australian city. Journal of Urban
Design.
Hoyt, H. (1933). One hundred years of land values in Chicago: the
relationship of the growth of Chicago to the rise in its land values,
1830-1933. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hoyt, H. (1939). The structure and growth of residential neighborhoods
in American cities. Washington: Federal Housing Administration.
Howard, E. (1898) To-morrow: a peaceful path to real reform. London:
Swan Sonnenschein & Co. Ltd.
Höjer, M., Gullberg, A., & Pettersson, R. (2011). Images of the Future
City: Time and Space for Sustainable Development. Springer.
Healey, P. (1992). Planning through debate: the communicative turn in
planning theory. Town planning review, 63(2), 143.
Henriksson, G. (2008). Stockholmarnas resvanor–mellan trangselskatt
och klimatdebatt. (Doctoral thesis. Lund University).
Henriksson, G., Hagman, O., & Andréasson, H. (2011). Environmentally
Reformed Travel Habits During the 2006 Congestion Charge Trial in
Stockholm—A Qualitative Study. International journal of
environmental research and public health, 8(8), 3202-3215.
Hensher, D.A. & Johnson, L.W. (1981). Applied discrete-choice
modelling. London: Croom Helm.
Hensher, D. A. (2008). Empirical approaches to combining revealed and
stated preference data: some recent developments with reference to
urban mode choice. Research in Transportation Economics, 23(1),
23-29.
Hoch, C. J. (2002). Evaluating plans pragmatically. Planning theory, 1(1),
53-75.
Hoch, C. (2009). Planning craft: How planners compose plans. Planning
Theory, 8(3), 219-241.
Hysing, E., & Isaksson, K. (2015). Building acceptance for congestion
105
charges–the Swedish experiences compared. Journal of Transport
Geography, 49, 52-60.
Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: essays on
livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.
Innes, J.E. (1990). Knowledge and public policy: the search for
meaningful indicators (2. exp. ed.) New Brunswick, U.S.A.:
Transaction Publishers.
Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory's emerging paradigm: communicative
action and interactive practice. Journal of planning education and
research, 14(3), 183-189.
Innes, J. E. (1998). Information in communicative planning. Journal of
the American Planning Association, 64(1), 52-63.
Innes, J. E. (2004). Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics.
Planning theory, 3(1), 5-20.
Innes, J.E. (2017). From informing policy to collaborating rationally. In
Haselsberger, B. (ed.) Encounters in planning thought: 16
autobiographical essays from key thinkers in spatial planning. New
York: Routledge.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building and complex
adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning.
Journal of the American planning association, 65(4), 412-423.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2000). Indicators for sustainable
communities: a strategy building on complexity theory and
distributed intelligence. Planning theory and practice, 1(2), 173-186.
Innes, J.E. & Booher, D.E. (2010). Planning with complexity: an
introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. London:
Routledge.
Isaksson, K. (2001). Framtidens trafiksystem?: maktutovningen i
konflikterna om rummet och miljon i Dennispaketets vagfrågor
(Doctoral Thesis, Linkoping University)
Isaksson, K., & Richardson, T. (2009). Building legitimacy for risky
policies: the cost of avoiding conflict in Stockholm. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(3), 251-257.
ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers). (2012) Trip Generation
Manual. 9th edition. Washington: ITE.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York:
Vintage books.
Jacoby, S. (2015a). Type versus typology Introduction. The Journal of
Architecture, 20(6), 931-937.
Jacoby, S. (2015b). Typal and typological reasoning: a diagrammatic
practice of architecture, The Journal of Architecture, 20(6), 938-961.
Jenks, M., Burton, E. & Williams, K. (eds.) (1996). The compact city: a
106
sustainable urban form?. London: E & FN Spon.
Johansson, F., Tornberg, P., & Fernström, A. (2018). A function-oriented
approach to transport planning in Sweden: Limits and possibilities
from a policy perspective. Transport policy, 63, 30-38.
Karlqvist, A., & Lundqvist, L. (1972). A contact model for spatial
allocation. Regional Studies, 6(4), 401-419.
Katz, P. (1994). The new urbanism: toward an architecture of
community. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kenworthy, J. R. (2019). Urban Transport and Eco-Urbanism: A Global
Comparative Study of Cities with a Special Focus on Five Larger
Swedish Urban Regions. Urban Science, 3(1), 25.
Koenig, J. G. (1980). Indicators of urban accessibility: theory and
application. Transportation, 9(2), 145-172.
Kostof, S. (1991). The city shaped: urban patterns and meanings through
history. London: Thames and Hudson.
Kramers, A., Wangel, J., Johansson, S., Höjer, M., Finnveden, G., &
Brandt, N. (2013). Towards a comprehensive system of
methodological considerations for cities' climate targets. Energy
policy, 62, 1276-1287.
Kramers, A., Höjer, M., Lövehagen, N., & Wangel, J. (2014). Smart
sustainable cities–Exploring ICT solutions for reduced energy use in
cities. Environmental modelling & software, 56, 52-62.
Kramers, A. (2014). Designing next generation multimodal traveler
information systems to support sustainability-oriented decisions.
Environmental Modelling & Software, 56, 83-93.
Krier, R. (1979). Urban space. London: Academy Editions.
Krier, R. (1983). Elements of architecture. London: Architectural Design.
Krier, L. (1984). Houses, palaces, cities. London: Architectural Design.
Krier, L. (2009). The architecture of community. Washington: Island
Press.
Krizek, K. J., El-Geneidy, A., & Thompson, K. (2007). A detailed analysis
of how an urban trail system affects cyclists’ travel. Transportation,
34(5), 611-624.
Krizek, K. J., Handy, S. L., & Forsyth, A. (2009). Explaining changes in
walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation
research. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(4),
725-740.
Krizek, K. J., & Johnson, P. J. (2006). Proximity to trails and retail:
effects on urban cycling and walking. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 72(1), 33-42.
Krizek, K. J., & Roland, R. W. (2005). What is at the end of the road?
Understanding discontinuities of on-street bicycle lanes in urban
107
settings. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 10(1), 55-68.
Krizek, K. J., Sharmeen, F., & Martens, K. (2018). Bicycling in changing
urban regions. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 11(1).
Kropf, K. (1996). Urban tissue and the character of towns. Urban Design
International, 1(3), 247-263.
Kropf, K. (2009). Aspects of urban form. Urban Morphology, 13(2), 105120.
Kropf, K. (2011). Morphological investigations: Cutting into the substance
of urban form. Built Environment, 37(4), 393-408.
Kropf, K. (2014). Ambiguity in the definition of built form. Urban
Morphology, 18 (1), 41-57.
Kropf, K. (2018). Handbook of urban morphology. Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons.
Jellicoe, G. (1961). Motopia: a study in the evolution of urban landscape.
London: Studio.
Jiang, Y., Zegras, P. C., & Mehndiratta, S. (2012). Walk the line: station
context, corridor type and bus rapid transit walk access in Jinan,
China. Journal of Transport Geography, 20(1), 1-14.
Lathouri, M. (2011). The City as a Project: Types, Typical Objects and
Typologies. Architectural Design, 81(1), 24-31.
Latour, B. (1996). Aramis or the love of technology. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard Univ. Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actornetwork-theory. Oxford: University Press.
Layard, A., Davoudi, S. & Batty, S. (red.) (2001). Planning for a
sustainable future. London: Spon Press.
Le Corbusier. (1986 [1923]). Towards a new architecture. New York:
Dover publications.
Le Corbusier. (1987 [1925]). The city of to-morrow and its planning. New
York: Dover publications.
Lee, C. C., & Jacoby, S. (2011). Typological Urbanism and the Idea of the
City. Architectural Design, 1(81), 14-23.
Lefebvre, H. (1996 [1967]). Right to the city. In Lefebvre, H. Writings on
cities. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. 61-181.
Lefebvre, H. (2003 [1970]). The urban revolution. Minneapolis, Minn.:
University of Minnesota Press.
Lefebvre, H. (1992 [1974]). The production of space. Malden, Mass:
Blackwell Publishing.
Levine, J. (1998). Rethinking accessibility and jobs-housing balance.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(2), 133-149.
Levine, J., & Garb, Y. (2002). Congestion pricing's conditional promise:
108
promotion of accessibility or mobility?. Transport Policy, 9(3), 179188.
Levine, J., Grengs J., Shen Q., & Shen Q. (2012). Does Accessibility
Require Density or Speed?, Journal of the American Planning
Association, 78(2), 157-172.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1973). Tristes tropiques. London: Jonathan Cape.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: selected papers. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Lewis, J.P. (1965). Building cycles and Britain’s growth. London:
Macmillan.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Higgins, H., Cuff, D., & Oprea, D. (2013). Up in the
Air: Urban Design for Light Rail Transit Stations in Highway
Medians. Journal of Urban Design, 18(3), 313-339.
Luke, T.W. (1990). Social theory and modernity: critique, dissent, and
revolution. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Lundin, P. (2008). Bilsamhället: ideologi, expertis och regelskapande i
efterkrigstidens Sverige (Doctoral Thesis, Kungliga tekniska
högskolan).
Lundqvist, L. (1973). Integrated location—transportation analysis; a
decomposition approach. Regional and Urban Economics, 3(3), 233262.
Lundqvist, L. (1996). Using combined network equilibrium models for
environmental assessments of land use-transportation scenarios. In
Hayashi, Y. & Roy, J. (eds.) Transport, Land-use and the
Environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 81-99.
Lundqvist, L. (1998). A combined model for analysing network
infrastructure and land-use/transportation interactions. In
Lundqvist, L., Mattsson, L. & Kim, T.J. (red.) (1998). Network
infrastructure and the urban environment: advances in spatial
systems modelling. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 329-343.
Lundqvist, L., & Mattsson, L. G. (1983). Transportation systems and
residential location. European Journal of Operational Research,
12(3), 279-294.
Lynch, K., & Rodwin, L. (1958). A theory of urban form. Journal of the
American institute of planners, 24(4), 201-214.
Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Lynch, K. (1981). A theory of good city form. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Majic, I., & Pafka, E. (2019). AwaP-IC—An Open-Source GIS Tool for
Measuring Walkable Access. Urban Science, 3(2), 48.
Marshall S. (2001). The challenge of sustainable transport. in Layard, S.
Davoudi, S. Batty (eds.), Planning for a Sustainable Future, London:
109
Spon, 131–147.
Marshall, S. (2005a). Streets & patterns. London: Spon.
Marshall, S. (2005b). Urban form. In Caves, R.W. (ed.) (2005).
Encyclopedia of the city. London: Routledge, 474-475.
Marshall, S. (2011). Urban coding and planning. Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge.
Marshall, S. (2012). Planning, Design and the Complexity of Cities. in
Portugali J., Meyer H., Stolk E., and Tan E. (eds.) Complexity
Theories of Cities Have Come of Age. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer,
191-205.
Marshall, S., & Banister, D. (2000). Travel reduction strategies:
intentions and outcomes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice, 34(5), 321-338.
Marshall, S., & Çalişkan, O. (2011). A joint framework for urban
morphology and design. Built Environment, 37 (4): 409-426.
McGlynn, S., & Samuels, I. (2000). The funnel, the sieve and the
template: towards an operational urban morphology. Urban
morphology, 4(2), 79–89.
McFadden, D. (1974). The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal
of public economics, 3(4), 303-328.
McFadden, D., & Reid, F. (1975). Aggregate travel demand forecasting
from disaggregated behavioral models. Transportation Research
Record, 534, 24-37.
McFadden, D. (2007). The behavioral science of transportation.
Transport policy, 14(4), 269-274.
McLoughlin, J.B. (1969). Urban and regional planning: a systems
approach. London: Faber and Faber.
Mehta, V. (2008). Walkable streets: pedestrian behavior, perceptions and
attitudes. Journal of Urbanism, 1(3), 217-245.
Mehta, V. (2009). Look closely and you will see, listen carefully and you
will hear: Urban design and social interaction on streets. Journal of
Urban Design, 14(1), 29-64.
Mehta V. (2014). Evaluating Public Space. Journal of Urban Design,
19(1), 53-88.
Mehta, V., & Mahato, B. (2019). Measuring the robustness of
neighbourhood business districts. Journal of Urban Design, 24(1),
99-118.
Metcalfe, R., & Dolan, P. (2012). Behavioural economics and its
implications for transport. Journal of transport geography, 24, 503511.
Milakis, D., Cervero, R., Van Wee, B., & Maat, K. (2015a). Do people
consider an acceptable travel time? Evidence from Berkeley, CA.
110
Journal of Transport Geography, 44, 76-86.
Milakis, D., Cervero, R., & Van Wee, B. (2015b). Stay local or go regional?
Urban form effects on vehicle use at different spatial scales: A
theoretical concept and its application to the San Francisco Bay Area.
Journal of Transport and Land Use, 8(2), 59-86.
Milakis, D., & Van Wee, B. (2018). For me it is always like half an hour:
Exploring the acceptable travel time concept in the US and European
contexts. Transport Policy, 64, 113-122.
Mitchell, R.B. & Rapkin, C. (1954). Urban traffic: a function of land use.
New York, N.Y.: Columbia University Press.
Moses, L. N., & Williamson Jr, H. F. (1963). Value of time, choice of
mode, and the subsidy issue in urban transportation. Journal of
Political Economy, 71(3), 247-264
Moudon, A. V. (1992). A catholic approach to organizing what urban
designers should know. Journal of Planning Literature, 6(4), 331-349.
Moudon, (1994). Getting to Know the Built Landscape: Typomorphology.
in Franck, K.A. and Franck, K.A. and Schneekloth, L.H. (ed.).
Ordering space: types in architecture and design. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold. 289-314.
Moudon, A. V. (1997). Urban morphology as an emerging
interdisciplinary field. Urban morphology, 1(1), 3-10.
Moudon, A. V., Lee, C., Cheadle, A. D., Collier, C. W., Johnson, D.,
Schmid, T. L., & Weather, R. D. (2005). Cycling and the built
environment, a US perspective. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 10(3), 245-261.
MSBK (Malmö Stadsbyggnadskontoret). (2001) Översiktsplan för Malmö
2000 (Öp 2020). Malmö: MSBK.
Mumford, L. (1938). The culture of cities. New York: Harcourt, Brace and
Company.
Muratori, S. (1950). Vita e storia delle città. Rassegna critica
d’architettura, 11-12. Rome: M. Danesi s.r.l.
Naess, P. (2006). Urban structure matters: residential location, car
dependence and travel behaviour. London: Routledge.
Naess, P. (2009). Residential self-selection and appropriate control
variables in land use: Travel studies. Transport Reviews, 29(3), 293324.
Naess, P. (2011). New urbanism or metropolitan-level centralization? A
comparison of the influences of metropolitan-level and
neighborhood-level urban form characteristics on travel behavior.
Journal of Transport and Land Use, 4(1), 25-44.
Næss, P. (2012). Urban form and travel behavior: Experience from a
Nordic context. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 5(2), 21-45.
111
Naess, P., Sandberg, S. V. L., & Røe, P. G. (1996). Energy use for
transportation in 22 Nordic towns. Scandinavian Housing and
Planning Research, 13(2), 79-97.
Næss, P., Hansson, L., Richardson, T., & Tennøy, A. (2013). Knowledgebased land use and transport planning? Consistency and gap between
“state-of-the-art” knowledge and knowledge claims in planning
documents in three Scandinavian city regions. Planning Theory &
Practice, 14(4), 470-491.
Newman, P. & Kenworthy, J.R. (1989). Cities and automobile
dependence: A sourcebook. Aldershot: Avebury Technical.
Newman, P. & Kenworthy, J.R. (1999). Sustainability and cities:
overcoming automobile dependence. Washington: Island Press.
Newman, P. & Kenworthy, J. (2015). The End of Automobile Dependence
How Cities Are Moving Beyond Car-Based Planning. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Olaru, D., & Curtis, C. (2015). Designing TOD precincts: accessibility and
travel patterns. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure
Research, 15(1), 6-26.
Oliva, I., Galilea, P., & Hurtubia, R. (2018). Identifying cycling-inducing
neighborhoods: A latent class approach. International Journal of
Sustainable Transportation, 1-13.
Oliveira, V. (2016). Urban morphology an introduction to the study of
the physical form of cities. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Olofsson, B., Mattsson, L. G., & Snickars, F. (2013). Sustainable Urban
Flows and Networks: Theoretical and Practical Aspects of
Infrastructure Development and Planning. In Metzger, J. & Rader
Olsson, A. (eds.) Sustainable Stockholm: exploring urban
sustainability in Europe's greenest city. New York: Routledge. 128154.
Papa, E., & Bertolini, L. (2015). Accessibility and transit-oriented
development in European metropolitan areas. Journal of Transport
Geography, 47, 70-83.
Páez, A., Scott, D.M., & Morency, C., (2012). Measuring accessibility:
positive and normative implementations of various accessibility
indicators. Journal of Transport Geography, 25, 141–153.
Panerai, P. Castex, J., Depaule, J. C. & Samuels, I. (2004 [1977]). Urban
forms: the death and life of the urban block. Oxford: Architectural
Press
Panerai, P. (1980). Typologies. In Panerai, P., Depaule, J., Demorgon.,
M., & Veyrenche., M. Elements D'analyse Urbaine. Bruxelles:
Archives d'Architecturc Moderne, 73-108.
Panerai, P., Depaule, J., Demorgon., M., & Veyrenche., M. (1980),
112
Elements D'analyse Urbaine. Bruxelles: Archives d'Architecturc
Moderne.
Park R.E. (1925). The city: Suggestions for the investigation of human
behavior in the urban environment. in Park R.E. (ed). The city.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1-46
Park, S., Choi, K., & Lee, J. S. (2015). To Walk or Not to Walk: Testing the
Effect of Path Walkability on Transit Users' Access Mode Choices to
the Station. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation
9(8), 529-541.
Persson, A. (2008). Attraktiv kollektivtrafik i små städer: förutsättningar
och möjligheter för ett ökat resande (Licentiate Thesis, Lunds
tekniska högskola).
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and
artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of
technology might benefit each other. Social studies of science, 14(3),
399-441.
Philolaus & Huffman, C.A. (1993). Philolaus of Croton: Pythagorean and
pre-Socratic: a commentary on the fragments and testimonia with
interpretive essays. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Pojani, D., & Stead, D. (2014a). Ideas, interests, and institutions:
explaining Dutch transit-oriented development challenges.
Environment and Planning A, 46(10), 2401-2418.
Pojani, D., & Stead, D. (2014b). Dutch planning policy: The resurgence of
TOD. Land Use Policy, 41, 357-367.
Pojani, D., & Stead, D. (2015a). Transit-oriented design in the
Netherlands. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(2),
131-144.
Pojani, D., & Stead, D. (2015b). Urban planning and design as verbal and
visual rhetoric. Journal of Urban Design, 20(5), 582-614.
Pont, M. B., & Haupt, P. (2007). The relation between urban form and
density. Urban Morphology, 11(1), 62-65.
Pooley, C. G., & Turnbull, J. (2000). Modal choice and modal change: the
journey to work in Britain since 1890. Journal of Transport
Geography, 8(1), 11-24.
Prillwitz J., and Barr S, (2011). Moving towards sustainability? Mobility
styles, attitudes and individual travel behaviour. Journal of Transport
Geography, 19(6), 1590-1600.
Pucher, J., Komanoff, C., & Schimek, P. (1999). Bicycling renaissance in
North America?: Recent trends and alternative policies to promote
bicycling. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,
33(7-8), 625-654.
Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2008). Making cycling irresistible: lessons from
113
the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transport reviews, 28(4),
495-528.
Pucher, J. R., & Buehler, R. (2011). Analysis of bicycling trends and
policies in large North American cities: Lessons for New York.
Pucher, J., Buehler, R., & Seinen, M. (2011). Bicycling renaissance in
North America? An update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and
policies. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 45(6),
451-475.
Pushkarev, B. & Zupan, J. (1977). Public transportation and land use
policy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Quatremère de Quincy, A. (1977 [1825]) Type, Oppositions 8, 147-150
(translated by Antony Vidler, original in Encyclopédie méthodique.
Architecture. Tome Troisième, Paris: Panckoucke libraire).
Ranhagen, U., Ekelund, B., & Troglio, E. (2015). Klimatsmarta och
attraktiva transportnoder. Stockholm: Kungliga tekniska högskola.
Ranhagen, U. (2016). Klimatsmarta och attraktiva transportnoder. In
Lundström, M-J., Engström, K-J. & Ranhagen, U. Energismart
Saamhällsplanering. Stockholm: Föreningen för Samhällsplanering.
55-68.
Rapoport, A. (1975). Toward a redefinition of density. Environment and
Behavior, 7(2), 133-158.
Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form: towards a manenvironment approach to urban form and design. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Rode, P., Floater, G., Thomopoulos, N., Docherty, J., Schwinger, P.,
Mahendra, A., & Fang, W. (2017). Accessibility in cities: transport and
urban form. In Meyer G. & Shaheen S. Disrupting mobility. Cham:
Springer, 239-273.
Rossi, A. (1982 [1966]). The architecture of the city. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Renne, J. L. (2009). From transit-adjacent to transit-oriented
development. Local Environment, 14(1), 1-15.
Rex, J., & Moore, R. S. (1969). Race, community and conflict: a study of
Sparkbrook. Institute of Race Relations.
Rex, J. (1971). The concept of housing class and the sociology of race
relations. Race & Class, 12(3), 293-301.
Ringenson, T., Arnfalk, P., Kramers, A., & Sopjani, L. (2018). Indicators
for Promising Accessibility and Mobility Services. Sustainability,
10(8), 2836.
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of
planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
Robinson, J.W. (1994). The Question of Type, in Franck, K.A. and
114
Schneekloth, L.H. (ed.). Ordering space: types in architecture and
design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 179-194.
Rydin, Y. (2007). Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning
theory. Planning theory, 6(1), 52-68.
Rådberg, J. (1988). Doktrin och täthet i svenskt stadsbyggande 1875-1975
(Doctoral Thesis, Kungliga Tekniska högskolan).
Rådberg, J. & Friberg, A. (1996). Svenska stadstyper: historik, exempel,
klassificering. Stockholm: Kungliga Tekniska högskolan.
Rådberg, J. & Johansson, R. (1997). Stadstyp och kvalitet. Stockholm:
Kungliga Tekniska högskolan.
Safdie, M. (1998). The city after the automobile: an architect's vision.
Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Sanders, P. S., & Woodward, S. A. (2015). Morphogenetic analysis of
architectural elements within the townscape. Urban Morphology,
19(1), 5–24.
Sanders, P., & Baker, D. (2016). Applying urban morphology theory to
design practice. Journal of Urban Design, 21(2), 213–233.
Samuels, I. (1990). Architectural practice and urban morphology. In:
Slater, T. R. (ed.) The Built Form of Western Cities: essays for M.R.G.
Conzen on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Leicester: Leicester
University Press.
Samuels, I. (1999). A typomorphological approach to design: the plan for
St Gervais. Urban Design International, 4(3-4), 129-141.
Samuels, I. (2008). Typomorphology and urban design practice. Journal
of Urban Morphology, 12(1), 58-62
Scheer, B. C. (2010). The evolution of urban form: typology for planners
and architects. Chicago: American Planning Association.
Scheer, B. C. (2015). Strip Development and How to Read It. in Emily
Talen (ed.) Retrofitting Sprawl: Addressing Seventy Years of Failed
Urban Form. Athens, Georg.: Univeristy of Georgia Press, 31-56.
Scheer, B. C. (2016). The epistemology of urban morphology. Urban
morphology, 20(1), 5-17.
Scheer, B. C. & Larice M. (2015). A Classification and Analysis of Urban
and Suburban Arterial Development: Toward an Understanding of
the Strip. In Cavallo, R., Komossa S., Marzot N., Berghauser Pont. M.,
& Kuijper, J. (eds.). New Urban Configurations. Amsterdam: IOS
press, 152-159.
Schivelbusch, W. (2014 [1977]). The railway journey: the
industrialization of time and space in the nineteenth century.
Oakland, California: University of California Press.
Schneekloth I.H and Franck, K.A. (1994). Prison or Promise?, in Franck,
K.A. and Schneekloth, L.H. (ed.). Ordering space: types in
115
architecture and design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 15-40.
Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types and words. Design studies,
9(3), 181-190.
Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2000). The city and the car. International journal
of urban and regional research, 24(4), 737-757.
Sharifi, A., and Murayama, A. (2013). A critical review of seven selected
neighborhood sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 38, 73-87.
Shoup, D. C. (1995). An opportunity to reduce minimum parking
requirements. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(1),
14-28.
Shoup, D. C. (1997). The high cost of free parking. Journal of planning
education and research, 17(1), 3-20.
Shoup, D.C. (2011). The high cost of free parking. (Updated Ed.) Chicago:
American Planning Association Planners Press.
Shove, E., Pantzar, M. & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social
practice: everyday life and how it changes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Simon, H. A. (1996 [1969]). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge;
MIT Press.
Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., & Dikshit, A. K. (2009). An
overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological
indicators, 9(2), 189-212.
Soja, E.W. (1989). Postmodern geographies: the reassertion of space in
critical social theory. London: Verso.
Soja, E.W. (1996). Thirdspace: journeys to Los Angeles and other realand-imagined places. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.
Southworth, M. (1989). Theory and practice of contemporary urban
design: a review of urban design plans in the United States. Town
Planning Review, 60(4), 369-402.
Southworth, M. (1997). Walkable suburbs?: An evaluation of
neotraditional communities at the urban edge. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 63(1), 28-44.
Southworth, M. (2003). Measuring the liveable city. Built Environment,
29(4) 343-354
Southworth, M. (2005a). Designing the walkable city. Journal of urban
planning and development, 131(4), 246-257.
Southworth, M. (2005b). Reinventing main street: From mall to
townscape mall. Journal of Urban Design, 10(2):151-170.
Southworth, M. (2016). Learning to make liveable cities. Journal of
Urban Design, 21(5), 570-573.
Southworth, M., & Ben-Joseph, E. (1995). Street standards and the
116
shaping of suburbia. Journal of the American Planning Association,
61(1), 65-81.
Southworth, M., & Owens, P. M. (1993). The evolving metropolis: studies
of community, neighborhood, and street form at the urban edge.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(3), 271-287.
Southworth, M., & Southworth, S. (1973). Environmental quality in cities
and regions. Town Planning Review, 44(3), 231-253.
SSBK (Stockholms Stadsbyggnadskontoret). (1997). Stockholms
byggnadsordning. Stockholm: SSBK.
SSBK. (2000). Översiktsplan för Stockholm 1999. Stockholm: SSBK.
SCAFT (1968). Riktlinjer för stadsplanering med hänsyn till
trafiksäkerhet: SCAFT 68. Stockholm: Statens Planverk.
Stead, D., & Marshall, S. (2001). The relationships between urban form
and travel patterns. An international review and evaluation.
European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 1(2),
113-141.
Steadman, P. (1979). The evolution of designs: biological analogy in
architecture and the applied arts. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Steadman, P. (2014). Building types and built forms. Kibworth
Beauchamp: Matador.
Stevens, M. R. (2017). Does compact development make people drive
less?. Journal of the American Planning Association, 83(1), 7-18.
Stojanovski, T. (2013). City information modeling (CIM) and urbanism:
Blocks, connections, territories, people and situations. In Proceedings
of the Symposium on Simulation for Architecture & Urban Design,
111-118.
Stojanovski, T. (2018a). Linking urban morphological and social
perspectives. Urban morphology, 22(1), 69-70.
Stojanovski, T (2018b). City Information Modelling (CIM) and Urban
Design - Morphological Structure, Design Elements and
Programming Classes in CIM. In Kepczynska-Walczak, A, Bialkowski,
S (eds.), Computing for a better tomorrow - Proceedings of the 36th
eCAADe Conference - Volume 1, Lodz, Poland, 507-516.
http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/paper/ecaade2018_274
Stojanovski, T., & Kottenhoff, K. (2013). Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) och
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)-Stadsutveckling för effektiv
kollektivtrafik. Stockholm: Kungliga tekniska högskolan.
Susilo, Y. O., & Maat, K. (2007). The influence of built environment to the
trends in commuting journeys in the Netherlands. Transportation,
34(5), 589-609.
Susilo, Y. O., & Stead, D. (2009). Individual carbon dioxide emissions and
117
potential for reduction in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
Transportation Research Record, 2139(1), 142-152.
Schwanen, T., Banister, D., & Anable, J. (2012). Rethinking habits and
their role in behaviour change: the case of low-carbon mobility.
Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 522-532.
Talen, E. (1999). Sense of community and neighbourhood form: An
assessment of the social doctrine of new urbanism. Urban studies,
36(8), 1361-1379.
Talen, E. (2002). Help for urban planning: the transect strategy. Journal
of Urban Design, 7(3), 293-312.
Talen, E. (2003). Measuring urbanism: Issues in smart growth research.
Journal of Urban Design, 8(3), 195-215.
Talen, E. (2009). Design by the rules: The historical underpinnings of
form-based codes. Journal of the American Planning Association,
75(2), 144-160.
Talen, E. (2012). City rules: how regulations affect urban form.
Washington: Island Press.
Talen, E. (2013). Zoning for and against sprawl: the case for form-based
codes. Journal of Urban Design, 18(2), 175-200.
Talen, E., & Anselin, L. (1998). Assessing spatial equity: an evaluation of
measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and
planning A, 30(4), 595-613.
Thomas, R., Pojani, D., Lenferink, S., Bertolini, L., Stead, D., & van der
Krabben, E. (2018). Is transit-oriented development (TOD) an
internationally transferable policy concept?. Regional Studies, 52(9),
1201-1213.
Thünen, J.H.V. (1966 [1826]). Von Thünen's isolated state: An English
edition of Der Isolierte Staat. Oxford: Pergamon.
Ton, D., Zomer, L. B., Schneider, F., Hoogendoorn-Lanser, S., Duives, D.,
Cats, O., & Hoogendoorn, S. (2019). Latent classes of daily mobility
patterns: the relationship with attitudes towards modes.
Transportation.
Tornberg, P. (2011). Making sense of integrated planning: challenges to
urban and transport planning processes in Sweden (Doctoral Thesis,
KTH Royal Institute of Technology).
Tornberg, P. (2012). Committed to coordination? How different forms of
commitment complicate the coordination of national and urban
planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(1), 27-45.
Tornberg, P., & Eriksson, I. M. (2012). Stadsstruktur och
transportrelaterad klimatpåverkan: En kunskapsöversikt.
Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
Tornberg, P., & Odhage, J. (2018). Making transport planning more
118
collaborative? The case of Strategic Choice of Measures in Swedish
transport planning. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 118, 416-429.
Torres García, M. (2018). The Evolution of a Practice in Trialectic Space:
An Approach Inclusive of Norms and Performance. Outlines. Critical
Practice Studies, 19(1), 25-45.
TRB (Transportation Research Board) (2004). Transit-Oriented
Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and
Prospects. Washington: TRB. (authored by Cervero, R., Arrington, G.
B., Smith-Heimer, J., Dunphy, R., Murphy, S., Ferrell, C., Goguts, N.,
Tsai, Y-H., Boroski, J., Golem, R., Peninger, P., Nakajima, E., Chui,
E., Meyers, M., McKay, S. and Witenstein N.)
TRB. (2006). Guidebook for evaluating, selecting, and implementing
suburban transit services. Washington: TRB. (authored by Volinski,
J.M, Connor, M. McLaughlin, J. Kopp, C. Ryus, P. & Pittman, D.)
TRB. (2016). Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition: A Guide for
Multimodal Mobility Analysis. Washington: TRB.
Trafikanalys. (2017). Uppföljning av de transportpolitiska målen 2017.
Available on:
https://www.trafa.se/globalassets/rapporter/2017/rapport-2017_7uppfoljning-av-de-transportpolitiska-malen-2017.pdf
Trafikanalys. (2018). Uppföljning av de transportpolitiska målen 2018.
Available on:
https://www.trafa.se/globalassets/rapporter/2018/rapport-2018_8uppfoljning-av-de-transportpolitiska-malen-2018.pdf
Trafikverket. (2011). Trafikverkets trafikalstringsverktyg:
https://applikation.trafikverket.se/ The manual of
Trafikalstringsverktyg Användarhandledning till verktyg för
beräkning av trafikalstringsta is available on:
https://applikation.trafikverket.se/trafikalstring/docs/manual.pdf
Trivector, (2014). Normativt index för mer hållbar tillgänglighet i Malmö
– så fungerar indexet (technical report 2013:96). Malmö:
Gatukontoret (authored by Wennberg, H. Wendle, B. Smidfelt
Rosqvist, L. & Östlund J.)
Turcu, C. (2013). Re-thinking sustainability indicators: local perspectives
of urban sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 56(5), 695-719.
Turcu, C. (2018). Sustainability indicators and certification schemes for
the built environment. In Bell, S. & Morse, S. (eds.) Routledge
handbook of sustainability indicators. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
156-175.
Turner, J.F. (1976). Housing by people: towards autonomy in building
119
and environments. London: Boyars.
Ullman, E. (1941). A theory of location for cities. American Journal of
sociology, 46(6), 853-864.
UN. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Unwin, R. (1912). Nothing Gained by Overcrowding! Westmister: P.S
King & Son.
Urry, J. (2004). The system of automobility. Theory, Culture and Society,
21(4-5), 25-39.
Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity.
Uexküll, J.V. (2010 [1934]). A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and
Humans with a Theory of Meaning. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Yiftachel, O. (1989). Towards a new typology of urban planning theories.
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 16(1), 23-39.
Vale, D. S. (2015). Transit-oriented development, integration of land use
and transport, and pedestrian accessibility: Combining node-place
model with pedestrian shed ratio to evaluate and classify station areas
in Lisbon. Journal of transport geography, 45, 70-80.
Vance, J.E. (1977). This scene of man: the role and structure of the city in
the geography of western civilization. New York: Harper & Row.
Vance, J.E. (1990a). Capturing the horizon: the historical geography of
transportation since the sixteenth century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Vance, J.E. (1990b). The continuing city: urban morphology in Western
civilization. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
Van Wee, B. (2002). Land use and transport: research and policy
challenges. Journal of transport geography, 10(4), 259-271.
Van Wee, B. (2009). Self-selection: a key to a better understanding of
location choices, travel behaviour and transport externalities?.
Transport reviews, 29(3), 279-292.
Van Wee, B. (2011). Evaluating the impact of land use on travel
behaviour: the environment versus accessibility. Journal of
Transport Geography, 19(6), 1530-1533.
Van Wee, B. (2016). Accessible accessibility research challenges. Journal
of Transport Geography, 51, 9-16.
Vidler, A. (1977). The Idea of Type: The Transformation of the Academic
Idea, 1750-1830, Oppositions 8, 95-113.
Vuchic, V. R. (1981). Urban Transportation System and Technology.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Vuchic, V. R. (2007). Urban transit systems and technology. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Wachs, M., & Kumagai, T. G. (1973). Physical accessibility as a social
120
indicator. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 7(5), 437-456.
Wangel, J., Wallhagen, M., Malmqvist, T., & Finnveden, G. (2016).
Certification systems for sustainable neighbourhoods: What do they
really certify?. Environmental impact assessment review, 56, 200213.
Williams, K., Jenks, M. & Burton, E. (ed.) (2000). Achieving sustainable
urban form. London: E & FN Spon.
Walters, D. R. (2007). Designing Community: charrettes, master plans
and form-based codes. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Webber, M. M. (1963). Order in diversity: community without
propinquity. in Wingo L (ed). Cities and space: The future use of
urban land, Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 23-54.
Webber, M.M. (1964). The Urban Place and the Nonplace Urban Realm.
In Webber, M. M., Dyckman, J., Foley, D., Guttenberg, A., Wheaton,
W., & Wurster, C. Explorations into Urban Structure, Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 79-153.
Webster, F. V., & Bly, P. H. (eds.) (1980). The demand for public
transport. Report of the International Collaborative Study of the
Factors Affecting Public Transport Patronage. Crowthorne, UK:
Transport and Road Research Laboratory.
Weinberger, R. Dock, S. Cohen, L. Rogers, J.D. & Henson J. (2015).
Predicting travel impacts of new development in America’s major
cities: testing alternative trip generation models. Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 2500: 36-47.
Wegener, M. (1994). Operational urban models state of the art. Journal
of the American planning Association, 60(1), 17-29.
Wegener, M. (1995). Accessibility and development impacts. In Banister,
D. (ed.) Transport and Urban Development. London: E & FN Spon.
157-161.
Wegener, M. (1996). Reduction of CO 2 emissions of transport by
reorganisation of urban activities. In Hayashi, Y. & Roy, J. (eds.)
Transport, Land-use and the Environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 103-124.
Wegener, M. (2004). Overview of land use transport models. In David A.
Hensher and Kenneth Button (Eds.): Transport Geography and
Spatial Systems. Pergamon/Elsevier Science, Kidlington, 127-146.
Wegener, M. (2014). Land-use transport interaction models. In Fischer,
M.M. & Nijkamp, P. Handbook of Regional Science. Berlin
Heidelberg: Springer, 741-758.
Westford, P. (2010). Neighborhood design and travel: A study of
residential quality, child leisure activity and trips to school (Doctoral
Thesis, KTH).
121
Witzell, J. (2019). Physical planning in an era of marketization:
conflicting governance perspectives in the Swedish Transport
Administration. European Planning Studies, 1-19.
Whitehand, J.W.R. (1977) The basis for an historico-geographical theory
of urban form, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
2(3), 400-416.
Whitehand, J.W.R. (1987). The changing face of cities: a study of
development cycles and urban form. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Whitehand, J.W.R. (2001) British urban morphology: the Conzenion
tradition. Urban Morphology 5(2), 103-109.
Whitehand, J.W.R., & Gu, K. (2017). Urban fringe belts: evidence from
China. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City
Science, 44(1), 80-99.
Wingo, L. (1961). Transportation and urban land. Washington, D.C.:
Resources for the Future Inc.
Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a Way of Life. American journal of
sociology, 44(1), 1-24.
Zahavi, Y. (1974). Travel time budgets and mobility in urban areas.
Washington: US Department of Transportation.
Zahavi, Y., & Ryan, J.M. (1980). Stability of Travel Components over
Time. Transportation Research Record 750.
Zahavi, Y., & Talvitie, A. (1980). Regularities in travel time and money
expenditures. Transportation Research Record 750.
Zupan M. J., & Barone, R. (2017). The Transportation Implications of
Land Use Growth Allocations in the New York Metropolitan Region.
Paper presented on World Symposium on Transport and Land Use
Research (WSTLUR) in Brisbane, Australia.
122
CRITICAL GLOSSARY AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
This section defines terms about cities and mobility, urban form and
transportation systems. The understanding of cities changes
continuously. Until the end of the 19th century, the cities were
constituted by charter or political decision (Kostoff, 1991). The city walls
defined the limits of cities. The word urban includes the old IndoEuropean root word ur, that describes enclosure or gated space. Urban
settlements are called pur in Indian, shahr in Persian, burg or bourg in
Germanic languages, grad or gorod in Slavic languages, etc. A gate is also
part of the Chinese sign for a city. Cities are enclosures, centres of
culture, habitats that boost daydreaming, utopianism and fantasy. The
essence of habitation according to Gaston Bachelard (1968, p.6) lies in
the fact that ‘it shelters daydreaming, it protects the dreamer and it allows
one to dream in peace.’ The enclosure does not mean gated space within
city walls, but also a street space surrounded by buildings. Enclosure is
considered as an underlying quality of urban space (Gehl, 1987; 2010;
Southworth, 1989; Carmona et al, 2002; 2003; Talen, 2003; Ewing et al.,
2005; Ewing & Handy, 2009). In the 20th century, the cities were defined
and classified by density and size of the population. Walter Christaler
(1966 [1933]) proposed a hierarchy of cities by size. Louis Wirth (1938)
defines cities as relatively large, dense and permanent settlement of
heterogeneous individuals with size, density and diversity as underlying
characteristics. This changed the definition of cities constituted by
charter. Stad (city) in Sweden was replaced with tätort (literally dense
place) in the 1970s. Tätort is any neighbourhood or urban area with at
least 200 residents where the distances between buildings are less than
200 meters. The cities today are understood as agglomeration of flows
and it is impossible to set urban borders (Ash & Thrift 2002). Mobility is
the easiness of movement or ability to move freely within cities.
Accessibility is the potential to reach destinations. The accessibility
and mobility continuously define and redefine cities (illustrated as
effect of transportation technology on urban form in Brotchie, 1984;
Brotchie et al, 1995; 1996). Henri Lefebvre (1996 [1968], p.78) writes: ‘If
one defines urban reality by accessibility to the centre, suburbs are urban.
If one defines urban by perceptible relationship between centrality and
periphery, suburbs are de-urbanised. All legible urban reality has
disappeared: streets, squares, monuments, meeting places.’
Urban form refers to the physical form or features of cities. It
implies design or emergence of form, in two or three dimensions, at a
variety of scales (Marshall, 2005b). Urban morphology studies
evolution of cities from formation to subsequent transformations
(Moudon, 1997). It focuses on elements of urban form at different scales
123
and the underlying dynamics of urban change. Urban morphologists
see the city as the most complex of human inventions (paralleled only by
language, Mumford, 1938). The city lies at the confluence of nature and
artefact. By its genesis and form, the city has elements of biological
procreation, organic evolution and aesthetic creation. It is an object of
nature and a subject of culture; individual and collective; lived and
dreamed (Rossi, 1982 [1966]; Moudon, 1997; citing Claude Lévi-Strauss,
1973 [1955], p.127 [p.138]). Moudon (1997, p. 9) states that ‘the physical
world is inseparable from the processes of change to which it is
subjected’. The physical form of cities is shaped by processes of change,
the conflicts between the social, the practical and perceived, the lived and
imaginary spaces (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974]; Soja, 1989; 1996). Henry
Lefebvre differentiate between the perceived (the mental and social
reading of urban forms) and lived (symbolic mix of mental and social
transposed on the social), perceived (spatial practices) and conceived
spaces or abstractions about the social and physical space (Lefebvre, 1991
[1974]). In cities, spatial practices in physical spaces collide with concepts
and representations materialized as designed spaces and symbolics of
ideal or imaginary mental or social spaces (Lefebvre 1996 [1968]; Torres
García, 2018). The urban forms become social constructs and embed
messages. The physical spaces, even unplanned urban forms, through
design and making embed symbolic and meaning that is constructed
socially or mentally (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974]). A particular house might be
perfect social symbol, but could not fit the mental symbolics of its
residents, that might produce conflicts. The garages in the house can turn
into storages if tenants do not own cars or do not like to drive.
Within urban morphology, there are different approaches to study
cities (discussed by Moudon, 1992; 1994; 1997; Gauthier & Gilliland,
2006; Kropf, 2009; 2018; Oliveira, 2016). This Doctoral Thesis
emphasizes two major traditions based upon the metaphysical
perspective described in the theoretical framework: typo-morphology
and urban analytics. Typo-morphology emphasizes and discusses
urban form elements, whereas urban analytics focuses of metrics of
cities and urban form variables.
Typo-morphology seeks to understand cities and their evolution
through types and typological processes. Types are abstractions
about urban forms (e.g. apartment block), the representative exemplar
or prototype. The earliest references to type is by Quatremère de Quincy
in the Encyclopédie méthodique. Architecture and Dictionnaire
Historique D'architecture (translated as Historical Dictionary of
Architecture) from 1825 and 1832 (Rossi, 1982 [1966]; Steadman, 1979;
2014). Type and typology are commonly used among architects, urbanists
124
and historicans (Rossi, 1982 [1966]; Vidler, 1977; Panerai et al., 2004
[1977]; 1980; Caniggia & Maffei, 2001 [1979]; Steadman, 1979; 2014;
Panerai, 1980; Aureli, 2011; Carl, 2011; Lathouri, 2011; Lee & Jacoby,
2011; Jacoby, 2015a; 2015b) Society creates types (of streets, buildings,
neighbourhoods, etc.) to simplify communication and promote values
(Franck 1994, p.345). The spatial practices of any society both structure
and are structured by the activity of creating and classifying types
(Franck & Schneekloth, 1994). A type is a characteristic exemplar of a
place (Platonic form or Aristotelian category), the essence or the original
place that makes it possible for us to understand its image and class
(Franck & Schneekloth, 1994). Similar to concepts in linguistic terms, a
type packs much information into one icon: a set of architectural or
environmental attributes; a set of rules for construction and for
organisation of space; a set of behaviours and defined roles that take
place within it; and a set of qualities it should exhibit (Schön, 1988;
Robinson, 1994). The types have history and they tell histories
(Southworth, 2005b; Jacoby, 2015a; 2015b). Types are not static. They
change over time and vary considerably between cultures and between
different groups within the same cultures. Even though the typologies
vary across cultures, the activity of creating types lives within all
societies (Schneekloth & Franck, 1994). Typology is inventory of
different types of buildings, streets, neighbourhoods, cities, etc. including
processes and rules to create types. Aldo Rossi (1982 [1966]) refers to
types as Platonic forms of the mind (Lynch, 1981), whereas Christopher
Alexander discusses types as genotypes in a process of
morphogenesis. Typological process is the progressive
transformation, variations and modification of the idea about an urban
element (e.g. building in its relation with the street). Morphogenesis or
the emergence of form is a typological process of an urban pattern.
Gianfranco Caniggia, one of the pioneers of the Italian typomorphological approach (Cataldi et al., 2002; Cataldi, 2003), argues
that cities grow incrementally with many elements being juxtaposed. An
understanding of the formation and transformation of cities needs
analysis of the mutation of the elements through both time and space
(Moudon, 1994). Typo-morphologists identify and dissect various
urban elements (Moudon, 1997), investigate their interrelationships and
organize them in a morphological structure (Conzen, 1960; Caniggia &
Maffei, 2001 [1979]; Kropf, 2011; 2014; Marshall 2015), create typologies,
and recognize and abstract urban patterns (Marshall & Çalişkan, 2011).
Urban pattern is an abstracted physical form (based on understanding
types). The urban patterns consist of elements and rules to combine
these elements. Urban patterns represent a typo-morphological
125
theory of urban design (Alexander, 1979, e.g. Alexander at al. 1977;
1987). Hammarby Sjöstad is a prototype of a sustainable neighbourhood
in Stockholm. Its urban form is characterized by a hierarchical street
layout. There is a boulevard as public space and semi-public side streets.
The buildings form partially enclosed city blocks with semi-private
courtyards. The building façades facing the boulevard have commercial
storefronts, smaller windows and no balconies. The windows looking at
the courtyards are larger and there are large balconies. A typical building
in Hammarby Sjöstad that has two differently designed façades facing the
courtyard and the boulevard is a type, an abstraction from actual urban
form (design element). A building with two differently designed façades
that adapts to the courtyard, side street or boulevard, becomes an urban
pattern if it is applied recurrently in Stockholm or other cities.
Christopher Alexander’s ‘pattern language’ is an example of the typomorphological approach. Urban patterns consists of a set of
elements or symbols and a set of rules for combining these symbols. In
the ‘pattern language’, the elements are patterns and patterns are
elements. In addition, there are rules, embedded in the patterns that
describe the way that patterns are created and how they are arranged
with respect to other patterns. A set of underlying elements and
relationships between elements characterizes an urban pattern: X=r (A,
B, C….) where X is type and r shows relationships between elements A, B,
C… Each pattern is connected to certain larger patterns (for example
main street is part of downtown where downtown=r (main street,
financial district…) which come above it in the language; and to certain
smaller patterns which come below it in the language main street=r
(commercial frontages, shopping, strolling, corner café, bus stop,
pedestrians…). Even though there are theoretically millions of
combinations between elements, the number of generic patterns is rather
small. The rules only allow combining certain elements in a pattern. Few
hundred patterns define cities like London or Paris (Alexander 1979).
Urban analytics is an approach in urban morphology that focuses
on the dynamics of urban change and the rules underlying these urban
dynamics usually with help of mathematics (Batty, 1976; 2005; 2013).
Science of cities and complexity theory conceptualize urban analytics.
Cities are agglomerations of individuals that interact in n-dimensional
space. They are adaptive and self-organizing systems with a dynamic
driven from the bottom up (Batty & Marshall, 2012). Urban analysts
work with symbolic representations, simulations and mathematical
models to describe, predict and inform about the underlying flows,
hierarchies and networks, the interplay between potential and
126
development and how urban change occurs over time and through space
(Batty, 2005; 2013).
Figure 42: Complexity of cities (inspired by Steadman, 1979; Marshall,
2012) and morphological approaches (the Doctoral Thesis analyses cities
as a system of spaces and flows, simplifying cities as adaptive
environments).
Urban morphologists analyse cities as objects, systems or
environments (Figure 42). There is an evolution in urban analytics
from system to adaptive organisms (Batty, 1976; 2005; 2015), and in
typo-morphology from objects, organisms to adaptive ecologies (Rossi,
1982 [1966]; Caniggia & Maffei, 2001 [1979]; Lynch, 1981). Typomorphologists use biological (natural/evolutionary) analogies and
describe the city as organism with cells (e.g. plots) and tissues (e.g. series
of plots). Gianfranco Caniggia (1933-1987), a student of Severio Muratori
(1910-1973), states that the physical city is not a (biological) object, but a
(morphogenetic) process of creating organisms (with cells and tissues).
The cities grow incrementally with many small elements being
juxtaposed. An understanding of the formation and transformation needs
analysis of the mutation of the elements (type of cells and tissues)
through both time and space (Moudon, 1994, p.292). Cities are born,
grow and evolve like organisms. However, unlike organisms and much
like mythical phoenixes or spirits (genii loci), they tend to resurrect from
ashes and never die (Lynch, 1981). Kevin Lynch (1981) describes cities as
evolving environments (learning ecologies) capable of modifying
themselves. There is evolution from understanding cities from objects to
organisms to ecologies in typo-morphology. Urban analysts understand
cities as closed and open systems (machine and organism-like). Cities are
defined as flows and networks of relations. Locations, places and spaces
anchor interactions. Sets of actions, interactions and transactions among
agents and networks define physical form (Batty, 2013).
127
Urbanism derives from the French word urbanisme. The French
urbanisme includes processes of urbanisation as well as urban theory
and analysis. In English, urbanism has much narrower meaning
emphasizing the urban way of living (Wirth, 1938; Fischer, 1975; 1995).
Urbanism is preferred in this Doctoral Thesis before planning, the
usual translation of urbanisme in English, or urban design.
Urbanism suggests an approach that comprehends the city as a whole
and puts an emphasis on urban as phenomenon, physical form of cities,
urbanisation and design. The French urbanisme emphasizes the
dialectics between physical space and spatial practices. Buildings or
neighbourhoods are socially produced physical spaces in cities where the
social is continuous in a flux, but deeply anchored in physical space
(Lefebvre, 1992 [1974]). Urban morphology belongs to the scientific
sphere of urbanism as a broader framework, but it links to urbanist
practices as morphological information (Samuels, 1990; McGlynn &
Samuels, 2000; Hall, 2007; Marshall & Caliskan, 2011; Hall & Sanders,
2011; Sanders & Woodward, 2015; Sanders & Baker, 2016).
Urbanism incorporates research disciplines (urban morphology,
urban sociology, urban geography, etc.) and professions. Strategic
planners produce and negotiate visions, frame problems and challenges
usually at larger scales from neighbourhood to metropolitan areas
(Albrechts, 2004). The ongoing paradigm in strategic planning is
participatory or communicative urbanism revolves around information,
communicative rationality and action (Healey, 1992; Innes, 1995; 1998),
consensus building and collaboration among actors and stakeholders
(Innes & Booher, 1999, Innes, 2004). Yvonne Rydin (2007) discusses
three collaborative, communicative or participatory planning streams.
For theorists and practitioners of consensus building (Judith Innes,
Lawrence Susskind, and so on) consensus has to be won through
negotiation and mediation between interests (and types of information).
For collaborative theorists (e.g. Patsy Healey) consensus is potentially
inherent in the act of communication between stakeholders. Radical
urbanists and architects (e.g. Leonie Sandercock) argue that the aim is
not consensus at any price, but empowerment of the most disadvantaged
in society. Strategic planning can be applied for any visionary or
futuristic thought including cities. Physical planning and urban
design focus specifically on cities. Physical planners work with
conventional zoning or density of development in two dimensions by
arranging land uses at a scale of plots or neighbourhoods. Urban
designers focus on physical form in three dimensions experiential
qualities of urban space, at a street, city block or neighbourhood level
128
(Southworth, 2016). Plan means document for strategic planners and
drawing for physical planners and urban designers (Walters, 2007).
Urban designers have advocated replacing conventional zoning
regulations with more detailed urban design guidelines (Duany & Talen,
2002; Talen, 2002; 2009; 2013; Walters, 2007). According to the Form
Based Code Institute (FBCI), conventional zoning regulates urban
development by setting land uses or employment and residential
densities, Floor Space Indexes (FSI), Open Space Indexes (OSI), and
parking requirements. FSI is usually referred to Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
FSI is the product of the total area on every floor divided by the area of
the plot. OSI is the product of the open area of the plot (the area of the
plot minus the area of the ground floor) divided by the area of the plot
(measured in percentage). FSI and OSI as terms derive from New York
City zoning. The earliest use of FSI or FAR is in Berlin in the beginning of
the 20th century (Rådberg, 1988). In addition urban design guidelines and
Form-Based Codes (FBCs) include conventional zoning requirements
plus street and building types, frequency of openings and building façade
regulations, street to building height ratios t build-to lines, number of
floors and specifications about percentage of open street frontage (FBCI,
https://formbasedcodes.org/).
The interrelationship between urban form and travel patterns is
often referred to as Land Use and Transportation interaction
(LUTi). It is conceived as a Land Use and Transportation (LUT)
feedback cycle. The distribution of land uses determines the locations of
activities such as working, shopping, education, leisure, etc. The
distribution of activities demands mobility to overcome the distance
between the locations. The transportation system creates
opportunities for interactions between locations and can be measured as
accessibility. The distribution of accessibility in space co-determines
location decisions and so results in changes the land use (Wegener,
1994; 2004; 2014; Wegener & Furst; 1999). In the literature, the terms
land use (Cervero, 1989; Cervero, 1991; Handy & Niemeier, 1997), built
environment (Ewing & Cervero, 2001; 2010) and urban form (Stead
& Marshall, 2001) are used interchangeably (Boarnet & Crane, 2001;
Boarnet, 2011). Land use refers to all the aspects of the built
environment: density, composition of activities, scale, layout and physical
design (Cervero, 1989, p.18), development patterns, size and density of
projects, the degree to which uses are segregated or mixed, design
features, demographic characteristics and levels of jobs-housing balance
(Cervero, 1991; Handy, 1997). In urban morphology, built
environment is also used instead of urban form (e.g. Kropf, 2014).
Land use the most overlaying element in the morphological structure of
129
cities. The generic morphological structure includes street layout, plots
and their aggregation in blocks, buildings (Conzen, 1960) and land use
(Birkhamshaw & Whitehand, 2012). Land use is the most flexible
element of urban form, but particular land uses need specific type of
building, plot and street. A big box building on a large lot cannot
support residential land use.
Density and other D-variables are often considered as land use
variables in the LUT studies. The demand for public transportation
increases with higher population and commercial densities and depends
on transit service and fares, but even more on the availability and price of
the competitive mode, the private car. The price is in money, time,
discomfort and disamenity (Pushkarev & Zupan, 1977). This research
tradition is anchored in New York and the transit professionals there.
Density even today plays crucial role in the planning of public
transportation systems in New York (Zupan & Barone 2017). Robert
Cervero (1989) expanded the research on density and the link between
urban form and transportation by clustering land use variables in four
factors: density, size, design and entropy of floor uses. These land use
factors became known as D-variables in the 1990s (Cervero &
Kockelman, 1997; Ewing & Cervero, 2001; 2010; 2017). This tradition has
much deeper roots in American sociology. Density, size and heterogeneity
are factors that quantitatively define cities (Wirth, 1938). Size and density
define urban areas in American censuses. Density in this Doctoral Thesis
is defined as number of inhabitants per hectare in an urban region
(Licentiate Thesis) or number of residents, jobs or jobs and residents in a
neighbourhood (Paper 8). Among urban morphologists and designers,
there are continuous discussions on the problem of density and urban
form (Unwin, 1912; Rapoport, 1975; Rådberg, 1988; Pont & Haupt, 2007;
Hall, 2011). Urban forms such as residential and commercial towers
surrounded by car parks can have a similar density and mix of residents
and jobs as the walkable main streets in small cities. It is possible to
develop dense and diverse neighbourhoods that are non-walkable, far
from public transportation, and so on. Density can be an ambiguous
urban form variable when dealing with transportation systems, mobility
choices and sustainable mobility.
Urban transportation in this Doctoral Thesis describes the
physical movement of people in cities. Transportation modes consists of
specific types of vehicles used, the facilities needed for their movement
and ways to operate the vehicles. Transportation professionals classify
transportation systems into transportation modes. Vukan Vuchic
(1981; 2007) uses vehicle type, type of service and level of segregation to
classify public transportation systems. Streetcar or tram, Light Rail
130
Transit (LRT), commuter rail and metro are all rail systems that can have
a similar vehicle technology, but different type of service and level of
segregation. In society, it is common to use generic transportation modes
by medium (land, air, water, etc.) or vehicle technology (car, bus, bike,
rail, etc.). Another aspect is ownership. Privately owned transportation
modes (car, bike and walking) are different from public transportation.
Shared car is not the same transportation modes as privately owned car.
Sharing redefines transportation modes as electrification or automation.
Private automobile, public transportation, cycling and walking are
generic transportation modes of urban transportation systems.
Transportation systems consist of transportation technology and
transportation infrastructures that shape cities, facility mobility and
create mobility cultures. Transportation infrastructures includes rightsof-way and terminal capacity, the immobile part of the transportation
systems. Every transportation system has three physical elements:
vehicles, rights-of-way and terminal capacity (Shoup, 2011).
Morphologically, transportation infrastructures are underlying element of
urban form (Conzen, 1960; Caniggia & Maffei, 2001 [1979]).
Transportation planning and engineering has specialized
professions. Transportation engineers work with design of
transportation systems and traffic. Traffic is the movement of vehicles,
cyclists and pedestrians. Traffic flow is the circulation of vehicles,
cyclists and pedestrian on transportation infrastructures. Traffic
capacity defines the maximum traffic flow of transportation
infrastructures. Traffic flow depends on traffic volume and speed
and it is function of urban activity and land use. Travel demand
expresses the need to travel, or the travel pattern (in terms of number of
trips, frequency, modal shift, etc.) during a given period of time in terms
of a set of explanatory variables (Webster & Bly, 1980; Balcombe, et al.,
2004). The argument that travel demand derives from land use is
consensual among transportation and planning professionals (Mitchell &
Rapkin, 1954; Cervero, 1991; Levine et al., 2012). Travel demand can be
characterized in a variety of ways. Trip frequency. measured in number
of trips per day of week and trip length, measured in time or distance
together determine the total amount of travel for an individual,
household or geographic area. Modal split or the percentage of travel by
particular transportation modes, determines the total amount of travel by
automobile, transit, biking or walking. Travel patterns is performative
expression of travel demand and define transportation
performance of urban form. They are dynamic and change periodically.
At a yearly level, they tend to stabilize. Transportation professionals
use many indicators and measures for performance of transportation
131
systems, accessibility and zoning. There are many highly influential sets
of measures for performance of transportation systems used by
transportation planners and engineers. Level of Service (LOS), Travel
Time Index (TTI) or Person Miles or Hours Travelled (PMT or PHT) are
used to evaluate segments of the transportation systems or system wide
mobility. LOS are based on average travel speeds. TTI show delays as
product of average and free flow travel speed. PMT, PHT or often Vehicle
Miles Travelled (VMT) show travelled distances (Ewing, 1995; TRB,
2016).
Transportation economics and modelling is an integral part of
transportation planning and engineering with focus on travel
behaviour and economic rationality or irrationality (Friedman & Svage,
1948; Becker, 1962; Becker, 1965). Transportation economists and
modellers focus predominantly on factors (including urban form
variables) that influence individual discrete travel choices. They usually
use agent-based models and simulations to represent and investigate
circulation of traffic and dynamics of traffic flows. Agents maximize
utility or avoid disutility (Ben Akiva, 1973; McFadden, 1974; 2007;
Hensher & Johnson, 1981; Ben-Akiva & Lerman, 1985). The probability
for a rational agent to take a trip by a mode is calculated by assessing all
the possible combinations of frequencies, destinations, times in the day,
modes and routes (Ben-Akiva, 1973; Burton, 2010). Sophisticated
methods from economics assess individual travel preferences and serve as
background to model travel behaviour (Hensher & Louviere, 1979;
Hensher, 2008). In transportation modelling and forecasting,
aggregated refers to data or analysis at the zone, neighbourhood or city
level, and to travel patterns (modal split, trip frequency, or average
trip length for a zone, etc.), whereas disaggregated to data or analysis
at the level of the individual (or household) and their discrete travel
choices (Handy, 1996). The economic rationality in transportation is
understood as value of time, elasticities of different variables (usually
in relation to income and travel costs) and travel budgets. Value of
time measures the willingness to pay to travel. It shows the amount that
a traveller would be willing to pay in order to save time or the amount
they would accept as compensation for lost time (Wingo, 1961; Moses &
Williamson, 1963; Beesley, 1965). The value of time depends on income
and varies from situation to situations. To averse loss, people are willing
to pay more. It makes sense to pay 100$ for taxi to catch a flight that costs
1000$, but no one will spend 100$ on travel to buy a 10$ pizza. The value
of time is always a ratio of the income. Travel budget is the amount of
money and time in an individual or household economy assigned for
travel (Zahavi, 1974). Elasticity is a measure that expresses the
132
percentage change of one responsive (travel pattern) variable as
response to one percent change of an explanatory (urban form or nonurban form) variable.
Mobility managers are new transportation professionals that
emerged with a new paradigm of sustainable mobility. They focus on
people instead of vehicles, on integration of people and all modes of
transportation (Marshall, 2001; Banister, 2008). The sustainable
mobility paradigm prioritizes use of travel time and urban experience,
instead of saving time (modified from Cervero, 1996, Shoup, 2011). It
emphasizes the social and behavioural aspects and tends to inform and
nudge travel habits towards environmental friendly and carbon neutral
mobility cultures. It involves a broader sociological perspective on
transportation systems as socially constructed technologies (Pinch &
Bijker, 1984), on narratives of actors behind failed transportation
technologies (Latour, 1996) or understanding mobility cultures (Sheller &
Urry, 2000; Anable, 2005; Urry, 2007; Prillwitz and Barr, 2011;
Henriksson, 2008; Henriksson et al., 2011). An important part is the
transportation politics and organisation (especially in Sweden e.g.
Witzell, 2018). This perspective includes an approach from political
science that looks at power struggles and conflicts between interests,
actors and stakeholders behind planning decisions (Isaksson, 2001,
Isaksson & Richardson, 2009; Tornberg, 2012; Hysing & Isaksson, 2015).
Johansson et al., 2018; Tornberg & Odlage, 2018). Mobility cultures
are sets of practices and knowledge how to use vehicle technology
(Schivelbusch, 2014 [1977]; Urry, 2007). The establishment of mobility
culture is a long process of social acceptance (e.g. of bikes in Pinch and
Bijker, 1984) where the society chooses its favourite transportation
technologies. Technology is a generic concept that variously specifies
such particulars as tools, technological apparatus, technical languages,
applied science, ensembles of techniques, technical methods, or, most
generally, the totality of means employed in society to provide the objects
necessary for human sustenance and comfort (Luke, 1990).
Sustainable mobility in this Doctoral Thesis is defined as
integration with multiple transportation modes that reflects in multitude
of mobility choices. These mobility choices allow to travel by most energy
efficient and environmental friendly transportation modes, ideally by
burning carbon neutral renewable fuels. Multimodality is a mobility
choices aspect of sustainable mobility. Multimodality defines the
ability to travel to destinations with different transportation modes. The
attribute multimodal applies for urban form elements, e.g. street where
is it possible to walk, to bike, to drive, to use public transportation. It is
possible to transfer this attribute to buildings, neighbourhoods and wider
133
urban and metropolitan areas that allow multimodal traveling.
Multimodality describes furthermore the competition between multiple
urban transportation modes on different scales. Individuals conceive and
choose among different travel alternative. Society selects and adopts
transportation technologies and this reflects in the urban form of the
neighbourhoods. Multimodality is entangled in an urbanist ideology of
city diversity (Wirth, 1939; Jacobs, 1961; Feinstein, 2005). It emphasises
a variety of travel alternatives and competitiveness between different
mobilities and problematizes the lack of mobility choices in the modern
city designed for automobile.
Figure 43 shows an overlay of overlapping and often confronting
perspectives on transportation systems and urban forms, travel
behaviour and multimodality (discussed in terms of accessibility by
Geurs & Van Wee, 2004) with research disciplines and professions.
Banister et al. (2007) emphasise the importance of professional aspect on
integration of transportation systems in cities and sustainable mobility.
Multimodality is understood among urbanists as urban form that
supports or hinder mobility. Urban planners frame urban problems,
produce and negotiate strategic visions usually at larger scales. They
typically work with physical plans in two dimensions, conventional
zoning and arranging land uses at a scale of neighbourhoods or patterns
of neighbourhoods in urban regions. Urban designers prefer
typologies, design guidelines or Form-Based Codes (FBCs) instead of
conventional zoning regulations. Urban analysts look at the dynamics
of urban change from a scale of a plot to entire urban region. They
investigate the behaviour of individual agents, the Land UseTransportation (LUT) interaction or develop agent-based models and
urban simulations in order to analyse or model and inform about urban
change (Batty, 2007; 2013). Transportation planners and
engineers focus on individual travel behaviour or capacity and
performance measures of transportation infrastructures. Multimodality is
a set of travel alternatives or set of performance measures for multimodal
infrastructures (TRB, 2016).
134
Figure 43: Overlay of perspectives on travel behaviour, transportation
systems and urban form with research disciplines and professions
Additionally, psychology provides new concepts for better
understanding of irrationality of agents: behavioural scripts and travel
habits (Gärling et al., 2001), personality traits and social norms (defaults,
commitments, ego, etc.) (Metcalfe & Dolan, 2012). Sociologists and
anthropologists analyse social aspects of transportation systems and
mobility cultures. Anthropologists focus on emergence and creation of
mobility cultures. Sociologists traditionally look at individual agency
135
from a perspective of social structure. Agents in sociology are something
between their authentic selves and their social roles, actors on a stage
never alone in acting, constantly engaged by others in group formation
and destruction, providing controversial accounts for their actions and
actions for other (Latour, 2005). The sociological perspective define
transportation systems as socially constructed technologies (Pinch &
Bijker, 1984). They investigate narratives of actors and networks behind
failed transportation technologies (Latour, 1996). They propose new
mobilities methods to understanding transportation systems (Sheller &
Urry, 2000; Urry, 2004; Urry, 2007; Dennis & Urry, 2009; Shove et al.,
2012) or conceptualize and differentiate mobility classes (Anable, 2005;
Prillwitz & Barr, 2011; Henriksson, 2008; Henriksson et al., 2011).
In society, multimodality is a symbolic struggle between mobility
classes that passionately embrace transportation technologies and
systems (cyclists versus motorists, flâneurs versus cyclists, etc.).
Mobilities (a term proposed by Sheller & Urry, 2006; Urry, 2007)
incorporates travellers and vehicles on the move, mobility cultures as
complex everyday procedures such as wayfinding and navigating, use of
technologies and apps while travelling, physical facilities and
infrastructures in cities and urban forms that support transportation
systems. Multimodality (as set of mobility choices) is individual, since
travel needs and preferences differ. Flâneurs favour walking, cycling
advocates love bikes, bus or rail nerds prefer transit and dedicated
motorists would drive everywhere. Green travellers prefer walking,
cycling and public transportation before private car and rational agents
have equal preference to all transportation modes. Mobility class is
proposed term to capture travel preferences and tastes deriving from
Bourdieusien conceptualisation of social class. They also show belonging
to mobility cultures. Social classes are groups of agents who occupy
similar positions in social space and who, being placed in similar
conditions and subjected to similar conditionings, have every likelihood
of having similar dispositions and interests and therefore of producing
similar practices and adopting similar stance (Bourdieau, 1979; 1985). In
a context of travel and multimodality, the term mobility class defines
groups of agents with same preferences to specific transportation
modes. The concept of mobility class relates to concepts of subcultures
(Fischer, 1975, 1984, 1995) or housing classes (Rex & Moore, 1969;
Rex, 1971).
136
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Non-competitive public transportation in neighbourhoods and
cities designed for cars................................................................................. 2
Figure 2: The publications as pieces of an analysing and information
puzzle in a framework of urbanism ............................................................. 5
Figure 3: Sustainable mobility approaches in the ‘Brotchie triangle’....... 13
Figure 4: Conceptual model of perceived environment and generic
morphological structure ............................................................................ 17
Figure 5: Cognitive representations of transportation systems and the
evolution of cities through development cycles ........................................ 19
Figure 6: Morphogenesis and cyclical changes shown as neighbourhood
types in a context of historical emergence of transportation systems ...... 21
Figure 7: Neighbourhood types link physical form with social constructs,
but also with lifestyles, behaviour and mobility ....................................... 22
Figure 8: The spheres of urbanism and elements of urban change.......... 23
Figure 9: Three conceptual frameworks to analyse the effect of urban
form on travel behaviour in a context of public transportation ............... 26
Figure 10: Morphological/perceptual scales of travel behaviour ............. 29
Figure 11: Mobility subcultures and their interactions. ............................ 31
Figure 12: Ideal accessibility ranges based on economic rationale behind
travel behaviour ......................................................................................... 34
Figure 13: Pre-industrial walkable city. The irregular street pattern of
medieval Stockholm and gridiron plan of Naples ..................................... 36
Figure 14: Industrialising city and railways in Letchworth ......................38
Figure 15: The modern city for the automobile Milton Keynes ................40
Figure 16: The Swedish modern city hybrid. Kista is a Stockholm suburb
designed with both high integration with the metro, the Tunnelbana, and
the private automobile ............................................................................... 41
Figure 17: The city under industrialisation and the bicycle. Copenhagen
and Amsterdam as cycling capitals of the world ....................................... 43
Figure 18: Bikeways in the urban core from the industrialising period in
New York .................................................................................................... 44
Figure 19: Methods of abstracting urban patterns of neighbourhoods and
cities ...........................................................................................................48
Figure 20: Methods of pattern matching used to classify the
neighbourhoods in the city of Karlstad ..................................................... 49
Figure 21: The method to observation on the study visits ........................ 51
Figure 22: Mobility choices model. ........................................................... 52
Figure 23: The demographics input into Trafikalstring, the online travel
forecasting model ...................................................................................... 55
Figure 24: Cyclical changes and morphogenesis of Swedish cities .......... 58
Figure 25: Neighbourhood types in the evolution of Swedish cities ........ 59
Figure 26: Models of Swedish urbanisation and the development effect of
transportation ............................................................................................ 61
137
Figure 27: Morphological dissection of Hammarby Sjöstad as a prototype
of sustainable city neighbourhood along LRT (or BRT) systems. ............ 63
Figure 28: Similarities between the sustainable city neighbourhood
developments in the Northern European cities ........................................ 64
Figure 29: American TOD experiences. .................................................... 65
Figure 30: Trends of public transportation demand in Sweden .............. 67
Figure 31: Morphological differentiation of public transportation system
by segregation from street in the context of BRT .................................... 70
Figure 32: Morphological abstractions about integration of the typology
of public transportation systems in three-dimensional urban space ........71
Figure 33: Neighbourhood types in the Swedish city of Karlstad ............ 75
Figure 34: Scatter plot charts showing intervals by land uses and
neighbourhood types ................................................................................. 76
Figure 35. Heat maps of LoIs and modal shares (Munksjöstaden).......... 79
Figure 36. Heat maps of LoIs and modal shares (Tenhult) ..................... 80
Figure 37. Heat maps of LoIs and modal shares (Haningeterrassen) ...... 81
Figure 38: Information about the effect of urban form on multimodal
travel .......................................................................................................... 82
Figure 39: Energy use and CO2 emissions based on the modal share
estimation by mobility choices model. ...................................................... 83
Figure 40: How would different mobility classes perceive mobility choices
in Jönköping and Stockholm..................................................................... 85
Figure 41: Vision for BRT-TOD metropolis in Swedish cities .................. 93
Figure 42: Complexity of cities and morphological approaches............ 127
Figure 43: Overlay of perspectives on travel behaviour, transportation
systems and urban form with research disciplines and professions ...... 135
Table 1: List of publications included in the PhD thesis ............................. 4
Table 2: Sustainable mobility indicators/urban form and accessibility
factors at different scales ........................................................................... 53
Table 3: Weighting of transportation mode preferences for typical
mobility classes .......................................................................................... 56
Table 4: Characteristics of typical public transportation systems............ 70
138