Planning professionals have begun to reevaluate their role as urban designers in light of the recent obesity epidemic and

recommendations from health professionals promoting non-motorized transportation. Transportation systems, including roads, bike lanes, and sidewalks, are the arteries of urban areas offering residents the ability to easily reach work, schools, parks, homes, and other destinations. These circulation systems are designed to provide safe and efficient access through thoughtful use of materials, location, and design. Insofar as planners design transportation systems they have the opportunity to influence residents mode choice by creating pedestrian- and bicycle-accessible infrastructure. The concept of accessibility is frequently cited in the literature and it is worth providing a brief description of this oft-used term. Accessibility has been defined as the intensity of the possibility of interaction (Hansen 1959). The level of accessibility is reflected in both the nature of nearby destinations and characteristics of the routes themselves the ease of use and appeal of those destinations. There is a wide range of variables that can be measured regarding destinations, including both quantifiable data as well as highly qualitative information, ranging from the quantity of destinations to the appeal of shopping areas. The second group of variables, which are related to routes and are equally wide ranging include such measures as route distance, travel time, and variety of scenery along the route

To survey the role of potential rriers to Accessibility Planning, d novel approach to analysing pedestrian route choices. Further details of the To methodologies analyse how practical applied in the surveys are presented in Chapters 8 and 9. anning tools for measuring cessibility could st be improved. e study formulated two erarching research propositions r why planning ethodologies using accessibility dicators had not previously cceeded. The st proposition studied cultural rriers to Accessibility Planning xploring tential conflicts between cessibility Planning and the minant transport anning culture). A second oposition investigated whether ck of planning ols was a barrier to Accessibility anning (examining the ailability of tools eded to assess accessibility). ch overarching proposition was rther subdivided o a number of underlying search propositions (see apter 6). 3.2. Research activities erature reviews were used to entify gaps in previous research d to develop

Various methods in measuring accessibility Background Measurement method Description Political Science Container method Number of facilities or services located within a given unit (e.g. census tract or political precinct Geography/Urban studies Gravity potential Facilities weighted by their size and adjusted for the friction of distance Travel cost Measures total or average distance between origins and all destinations Minimum distance Refl ects the distance from a residential location to nearest facilities The fi rst approach termed as container approach is used in political literatures. Usage of the census tract as the unit of analysis is convenient as census variables are typically used as explanatory factors to capture the socioeconomic characteristics of the residents. How ever in this approach a count of facilities (or measure of provided services) by any geographical unit -ward, planning, district, etc- would be equally valid. TThe second index introduced as gravity potential indicates weight of facilities by their size adjusted for the friction of distance. For each location (tract), the assessed accessibility score characterizes the potential supply of services by every facility in the urban area; hence the higher the score, the grater the available supply. 22 The third approach measures travel cost that is similar to the one adopted in this study. As a simplifi ed description, it measures the total or average distance between each origin (census tract) and all destinations (public facilities). Since the aim is to minimize average cost of travel a lower index value indicates better accessibility. The last accessibility index is temed minimum distance. This approach focuses on the distance from a residential location (tract) to the nearest facility. As with the travel cost index, a lower value of the equity index refl ects better access. To obtain a comprehensive knowledge on accessibility it is essential to discern some effective parameters of urban service facilities such as service impact/range, residents preferences and spatial separation. However since the study is set at neighbourhood level, it is not necessary to discuss in depth categories of service impact/range or the impact of noxious facilities on measuring accessibility because these parameters are infl uential where accessibility is being assessed at municipal level which may include various facilities at different scales related to different planning subdivisions. After reviewing different approaches and important parameters I now outline the approach adopted for this study. In this framework accessibility connotes relative proximity of one place i to another place j. Taking a spatial analysis perspective distances -between censual tract and urban facilities- are measured in actual street network. The following equation features the adapted defi nition: Ai = f (Wj , dij)

In general, a variety of measures have been explored in recent years to better understand factors that influence neighborhood accessibility and walkability. Common measures include population density, proximity of employment opportunities to residential areas, household density, age, race, land use mix, and urban design (i.e., street network, landscaping, views, proximity of parks) (Cervero 1997). Other measures include transportation infrastructure (i.e., number of vehicle lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalks), street design (i.e., cul-de-sacs, grid), neighborhood design (i.e., traditional, suburban, neo-traditional), and accessibility (i.e., proximity of destinations and number of destinations within a given distance) (Transportation Research Board 2005).

to identify an area of intervention, or a group of priority pedestrian pathways in terms of connection to important nodes, in relation to the aims of the project: services, places of tourist interest and dedicated to leisure activities, resting areas, green areas in order to be able to realise a possible network that is continuous, safe, accessible, comfortable, recognisable and attractive; to remove from these pathways the elements of inconvenience due to the discontinuity of the pathway, to big difficulties in using it, to the physical, visual and psychological threat represented by the motor means of transport; to assess the connections with public transports, with parking spaces, with places of interchange in terms of comfort and accessibility, to optimise the communication systems, the road signs and the connected urban furniture; to assess the possibility to keep together or separate pedestrian flows from other motorised or non-motorised flows.

The quality of accessibility by different modes and in specific areas. The quality of accessibility by various groups and how they compare, with particular attention to the relative quality of accessibility by disadvantaged groups. Possible strategies for improving accessibility, including increased user comfort, convenience and affordability, not just travel speed. Possible strategies for improving alternative modes and reducing automobile travel. Which groups bear excessive time or financial costs for basic mobility.

Accessibility-based evaluation models are available that take into account both mobility and land use factors. These use geographic information systems (GIS) to measure the travel distance between various activities, such as average distances between homes and services, or the number of jobs within a halfhour travel distance of residents.
Evaluate transport improvements primarily in terms of accessibility rather than mobility. Assign value to accessibility gains inversely related to peoples current levels of accessibility, to reflect the principle of diminishing marginal benefits. Accessibility gains for the mobility-poor should be valued higher than the same increase in accessibility by the mobility-rich.

Evaluating Accessibility

Accessibility should generally be measured door-to-door, taking into account the travel links from origins to vehicles and from vehicles to destinations. For example, delays finding a parking space should be counted as part of travel time costs. Travel time costs should reflect factors such as comfort and convenience. For example, congestion and crowding increase unit costs (Travel Time Costs, Litman, 2006a). Travel distances should be based on actual network conditions, rather than asthe-crow-flies. Accessibility analysis should consider costs such as vehicle ownership and parking, not just vehicle operating costs.

Automobile dependency can be evaluated based on: Per capita annual vehicle travel. Mode split (portion of total travel by various modes). In general, automobile mode split over 90% indicates a high degree of automobile dependency, and less than 75% indicates a fairly multi-modal community, where non-drivers are not significantly disadvantaged. Mode split by discretionary travelers (use of alternative modes by people who could drive), which indicates whether alternative modes provide high service quality. Land use accessibility (the amount of mobility needed to reach a typical set of destinations). Ewing, Pendall and Chen (2002) developed an index that quantifies the degree of sprawl in a particular area. The relative difference in generalized travel costs (combined financial costs and monetized travel time) between drivers and non-drivers to reach a typical set of destinations. Quantity and quality of alternative modes available. This can be quantified using multi-modal level-ofservice rating (FDOT 2007). Specific indicators, such as the portion of children who walk or bicycle to school.

Potential Accessibility Factors Access and Mobility Demand

Improvement Strategies

Use research to better understand peoples accessibility and mobility needs, preferences and abilities, and use social marketing strategies to develop better options that respond to these demand, and to encourage consumers to choose more efficient and equitable options. Prioritize transportation improvements and activities to favor access to goods, services and activities considered most important to society. Improve traffic speed and capacity, such as improving and expanding roadways. Improve the convenience, comfort, safety, reliability, affordability and speed of transport options, including walking, cycling, automobile, rideshare, taxi, carshare and public transit.

Basic Access and Mobility Mobility Transportation Options

User Information

Improve the quantity and quality of user information regarding travel and location options, including signs, maps, brochures, websites and telephone services. Special attention can be given to providing convenient information on alternative modes and efficient locations.
Improve connections between different modes and destinations, such as more integrated information, fares, walkability, baggage transfers, automobile and bicycle parking. Improve the quantity and quality of affordable modes (walking, cycling, ridesharing, public transit, taxi and telework), and improve housing affordability in accessible locations. Improve the quantity and quality of telecommunications and delivery services that substitute for physical travel. Improve land use accessibility by increasing density and mix, in order to create activity centers and urban villages that contain the appropriate combination of housing, jobs and services within convenient walking and cycling distance. Improve road and path connectivity to allow more direct travel between destinations, including special shortcuts for non-motorized travel where appropriate. Improve roadways to increase traffic flow (for example, by reducing the number of driveways), to favor higher occupant vehicles, and to improve walking and cycling conditions. Use mobility and parking management strategies to favor higher value trips and more resource-efficient vehicles, and to encourage more accessible land use development. Better road and parking pricing methods reduce transaction costs and increase the feasibility of implementing pricing reforms to increase overall transportation system efficiency. Where appropriate, limit mobility and accessibility.

Integration Affordability Mobility Substitutes Land Use Factors

Transport Network Connectivity Roadway Design and Management Prioritization Improve Payment Systems Inaccessibility

DANISH KHAN 081110202 MAKING OLD Bhopal accessible

3.2 Data Inputs The accessibility score methodology developed by Abley Transportation Consultants uses 8 Core+27 land use activities. These are: Doctors Hospitals Primary Schools Secondary Schools Further Education Convenience Stores (Dairies, Petrol Stations, Convenience Stores) Supermarkets Employment (places of work)

The accessibility score methodology uses transport networks for: Walking Cycling Public Transport Private Motor Vehicle

MAKING OLD BHOPAL ACCESSIBLE

Accessibility refers to the ease of reaching goods, services, activities and destinations, which together are called opportunities. For example, grocery stores provide access to food. Libraries and the Internet provide access to information. Paths, roads and airports provide access to destinations and therefore activities (also called opportunities).

Scope and Objectives to identify an area of intervention, or a group of priority pedestrian pathways - in terms of connection to important nodes, in relation to the aims of the project: services, places of tourist interest and dedicated to leisure activities, resting areas, green areas in order to be able to realise a possible network that is continuous, safe, accessible, comfortable, recognisable and attractive; to remove from these pathways the elements of inconvenience due to the discontinuity of the pathway, to big difficulties in using it, to the physical, visual and psychological threat represented by the motor means of transport; to assess the connections with public transports, with parking spaces, with places of interchange in terms of comfort and accessibility, to optimise the communication systems, the road signs and the connected urban furniture; to assess the possibility to keep together or separate pedestrian flows from other motorised or non-motorised flows.

Studies and Surveys to find The quality of accessibility by different modes and in specific areas. The quality of accessibility by various groups and how they compare, with particular attention to the relative quality of accessibility by disadvantaged groups. Possible strategies for improving accessibility, including increased user comfort, convenience and affordability, not just travel speed. Possible strategies for improving alternative modes and reducing automobile travel. Which groups bear excessive time or financial costs for basic mobility. Data Inputs The accessibility score methodology developed by Abley Transportation Consultants uses Core+27 land use activities. These are: Doctors Hospitals Primary Schools Secondary Schools Convenience Stores (Dairies, Petrol Stations, Convenience Stores) Supermarkets Employment (places of work)

Measuring Accessibility
Developing and refining methods of measuring accessibility across many modes of transportation paints a clearer picture of how people reach common destinations such as jobs, schools, shopping, and parks. Automobile Walking Bicycling Transit

Study Area

Research methodology Research objectives and propositions

As previously mentioned, the main research question was to investigate if Accessibility Planning is a chimera. To answer this, four main research objectives were formulated: To investigate the empirical foundation of local accessibility indicators, To examine why planning methodologies using accessibility indicators, developed between 1970s and 1990s, did not succeed, To survey the role of potential barriers to Accessibility Planning, and To analyse how practical planning tools for measuring accessibility could best be improved. The study formulated two overarching research propositions for why planning methodologies using accessibility indicators had not previously succeeded. The first proposition studied cultural barriers to Accessibility Planning (exploring potential conflicts between Accessibility Planning and the dominant transport planning culture). A second proposition investigated whether lack of planning tools was a barrier to Accessibility Planning (examining the availability of tools needed to assess accessibility). Each overarching proposition was further subdivided into a number of underlying research propositions .

Research activities

Literature reviews were used to identify gaps in previous research and to develop research propositions surrounding barriers to Accessibility Planning. A further literature review examined tools used for transport planning and compared them to those needed for Accessibility Planning. Surveys designed to answer the research propositions. A survey of local authorities collected data on local implementation barriers and the perceptions of Accessibility Planning amongst transport planners. Results from this survey and from the literature reviews steered the scope of a second survey which explored how accessibility levels varied depending on the design of an accessibility indicators impedance function when travelling on foot.

Issues and Limitations

Today, the city of Bhopal is witnessing a major problem in the transportation front, mainly due to the following factors: Prevailing imbalance in modal split. Inadequate transport infrastructure and its suboptimal use. Disconnection between land use and transport planning. Lack of feeder transport. Inadequate infrastructure for pedestrians Safety of people