Environment and Planning A 2003, volume 35, pages 575 ^ 589

DOI:10.1068/a3592

Urban development without more mobility by car?

Lessons from Amsterdam, a multimodal urban region

Luca Bertolini, Frank le Clercq

AMEöAmsterdam Study Centre for the Metropolitan Environment, Universiteit van Amsterdam,
Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018 VZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
e-mail: l.bertolini@frw.uva.nl, fcl@tg.nl
Received 30 March 2002; in revised form 3 October 2002

Abstract. The fundamental dilemma in attempts to make urban development less dependent upon
mobility by car is the inability of alternatives to match the quality of accessibility provided by private
motorized transport. Failure to recognize this means that bringing about environmentally more
sustainable urban mobility patterns is only possible at economic, social, and political costs that are
unacceptable in most societies. In this paper we identify and discuss ways out of this dilemma, in the
form of solutions that pursue the goal of increasing both sustainability and accessibility. We start by
contending that what people ask is not a generic mobility, but rather opportunities to participate in
spatially disjointed activities. Accordingly, accessibility should be defined as the amount and the
diversity of `spatial opportunities' that can be reached within a certain amount of time. Solutions to
the accessibility ^ sustainability dilemma building upon this perspective (that is, planning concepts,
policy measures) have been the object of recent research at the Universiteit van Amsterdam and are
discussed and we look for, and find, evidence of the feasibility of these solutions in the actual trends
in the Amsterdam urban region. Some policy implications of the findings are discussed.

1 Introduction
Transport is a central aspect of the sustainable urban development debate. Urban trans-
port has major impacts on the local (and the global) environment, as well as on the
quality of life in, and the economic performance of, cities. Because so many things
come together when dealing with urban transport, the subject is highly complex. Direct
measures such as energy use, CO2 emissions, air pollution, traffic noise, and the like
would be the best indicators of the environmental impact of urban transport. However,
these measures are rarely available; hence, the `per capita distance traveled by car' is
the most widely accepted (un)sustainability indicator of urban transport (Wegener
and Fu«rst, 1999). This indicator is highly correlated with the aforementioned negative
environmental impacts, and also with other sustainability aspects (see, for instance,
Newman and Kenworthy, 1999). In a wider perspective, in which economic and social
issues are also considered, Newman and Kenworthy (1991) define the unsustainability of
current urban transport patterns as `automobile dependence'. From this perspective, the
challenge for sustainable urban transport and land-use planning becomes that of achiev-
ing urban development with no, or at any rate with as little as possible, increase in car
use.
There is, however, a fundamental dilemma when trying to make urban develop-
ment less dependent on the car: the inability of most alternatives to match the quality
of accessibility provided by private motorized transport. Failing to recognize this means
that bringing about more sustainable urban mobility patterns is only possible at
economic, social, and political costs that are unacceptable in most societies. Our goal
in this paper is the identification and discussion of ways out of this dilemma, in the form
of solutions that pursue the goal of increasing both sustainability and accessibility. Our
starting point is the observation that what people ask is not so much a generic mobility
but, rather, opportunities to participate in spatially disjointed activities. Solutions to the
576 L Bertolini, F le Clercq

accessibility ^ sustainability dilemma building upon this perspective are the object
of current research at the Universiteit van Amsterdam and are discussed in the first
part of the paper. We build upon these findings to sketch an environmentally more
sustainableöbut economically no less competitive, and socially and politically no less
acceptable övision for the integration of sustainable transport and land-use patterns in
urban development strategies. In the second part of the paper we look for, and find,
evidence of the feasibility of these solutions in the current mobility and activity trends
in the Amsterdam urban region. We then introduce some policy implications of these
findings.

2 The goal: from catering for mobility to providing spatial opportunities

The pursuit of sustainability cannot be considered separate from an economic, social,
and political context where other goals are equally, if not more, important. In all real-
world situations, sustainability will never be the only goal, and may often not even be
the dominant goal but will, rather, be weighed against other policy goals such as
economic competitiveness or social equity. This means that multidimensional solutions,
that is, solutions that succeed in serving several goals at the same time, will invariably be
the ones with the greatest chance of success. The implication for our objective in this
paper is that the most promising solutions will be those that succeed in combining
sustainability with other goals. Most important in this respect is the goal of improving
accessibility, that is, the basic reason for a transport system to exist. Even though
there are also other conceivable goals for the development of an urban transport
system (in the Netherlands, for instance, `livability' and `safety' are often considered), the
combination of the goals of sustainability and accessibility is central to overcoming
the friction among major environmental issues, social aspirations, and economic
imperatives mentioned in the introduction.
Having defined the objective as that of developing transport strategies and land-use
strategies that maximize the synergy between sustainability and accessibility, the next
step is to define both in a sound yet workable way. In our definition, sustainability
entails that as little nonrenewable resources as possible are consumed, and that as few
harmful emissions as possible are released. In the current and foreseeable context, this
means an urban transport system characterized by:
(a) as few car-kilometers as possible,
(b) as efficient and clean car-kilometers as possible.
In more general terms:
(a) as little motorized traffic as possible (this includes transit),
(b) as efficient and clean motorized traffic as possible.
Translated into policy objectives this amounts to (in order of priority):
(1) increasing as much as possible the opportunities for walking and cycling;
(2) when walking and cycling are not realistic possibilities, increasing as much as
possible the opportunities for transit while at the same time improving the environ-
mental performance of transit (for example, cleaner and more efficient engines, shorter
journey distances);
(3) when transit is also not a feasible option, improving the environmental perfor-
mance of the car.
In order to define accessibility adequately the introduction of three assumptions
about human behavior is required, all of which are well supported by research (see, in
particular, Downes and Emmerson, 1985; Ha«gerstrand, 1970; Schafer and Victor, 1997;
Zahavi, 1974):
Urban development without more mobility by car? 577

(a) For the most part people travel not just for the sake of it, but in order to participate
in spatially disjointed activities (for example, living, working, shopping, visiting in
different places).
(b) People want to have a choice among as large a number and as diverse a range of
activities as possible.
(c) Travel costs, and particularly travel time rather than travel distance, set a limit to
these possibilities (in the form of total daily travel-time budgets, travel-to-work time
budgets, etc).
According to these assumptions, accessibility can be defined as `the number and
the diversity of places of activity that can be reached within a given time limit'. The
goal of maximizing the synergy between sustainability and accessibility can be
expressed as the goal of:
Developing conditions for as large as possible a share of the more environmentally
friendly modes in urban mobility, while at the same time maintaining, and possibly
increasing, the amount and the diversity of activity places that can be reached
within an acceptable travel time.

3 Concepts for sustainable transport and land use

The goal formulated above is a useful reference when identifying promising sustainable
transport and land-use concepts. In general terms, the sustainability-with-accessibility
goal can be achieved if households and firms can link the same or a greater number
and diversity of places of activity other than by car:
(a) without travel,
(b) by walking or cycling,
(c) by transit,
(d) or by the more efficient use of (cleaner) cars.
A shift of urban mobility and activity patterns in this direction has implications
both for transport and for land-use policy, as schematically illustrated in figure 1.
Examples of transport-policy implications are facilitating walking and cycling by
developing dedicated infrastructure (footpaths, bicycle paths), improving the speed
Transport Activity Land-use
implications coupling implications

Develop multifunctional
without travel homes and workplaces

Facilitate, for example, Develop multifunctional

walking/cycling
through physical design neighborhoods

Selectively increase average Promote transit-

door-to-door speeds, and/or by transit oriented development,
flexibilize transport supply for example, functional
concentrations at nodes
Further more selective use,
and `cleaner' technologies, by car
for example, through price
or physical design

Figure 1. Policy implications of sustainable urban mobility patterns.

578 L Bertolini, F le Clercq

and especially the flexibility of transit (as with light rail systems), stimulating the
introduction of cleaner engine technologies and the more efficient use of the car
(for example, through car-pooling or car-sharing programs). An accompanying,
highly effective, transport-policy measure is, of course, in all cases the (selective)
discouragement of car use: for instance, through parking regulations, road pricing,
or physical design. Examples of land-use policy implications include the development
of multifunctional homes and workplaces, for example, facilitating teleworking; the
development of multifunctional neighborhoods allowing walking or cycling to work-
places, shops, or other facilities; and orientating the spatial development of urban
regions to public transport networks, as in `transit-oriented development' (Calthorpe,
1993; Cervero, 1998).
A variety of transport and land-use packages can be derived from these policy
implications. Local conditions will largely determine which are the most effective.
However, some guiding principles can be identified and are introduced below.(1) It is
important to underline that these should by no means be seen as blueprints, but rather
as visualizations of potential directions. Furthermore, the focus on the supply side of
transport and land-use measures should not obscure the fact that demand-management
measures, such as pricing of car use, are also an essential part of successful strategies
(see, among others, Bertolini et al, 2000; Wegener and Fu« rst, 1999).
The central idea informing the following is that the quality of the accessibility of a
given location has to be matched by the sort of activity to be located there, exploiting
all sorts of transport modes. We define this philosophy as `multimodal urban ^ regional
development'. In this perspective, two dimensions are especially important: the spatial
reach of an activity or function (or its market or `catchment' area, expressed, for
example, in kilometers) and its intensity of use (which may be expressed as inhabitants,
workers, and/or visitors per unit of space and/or time). Given these two dimensions,

Activity feature:
spatial reach
Transport feature:
speed
Transit
Car environments
environments

Walking and cycling

environments

Activity feature:
intensity of use
Transport features:
capacity (increasing),
flexibility (decreasing)
Figure 2. Principles of multimodal urban ^ regional development: conceptual scheme.

(1)
Analogous principles have been and are being introduced, discussed, and elaborated in an
evolving body of literature. See, for instance, Bertolini, 1999; Bertolini and Dijst, 2003; Breheny
and Rookwood, 1993; Calthorpe, 1993; Cervero, 1998; Goudappel Coffeng, 1999a; Hall and Ward,
1998; le Clercq and de Vries, 2000; Meijers, 2000; Ministerie van V&W, 1995; Newman and
Kenworthy, 1999; VHP and Goudappel Coffeng, 1999.
Urban development without more mobility by car? 579

the features (for example, speed, flexibility, capacity) of the available transport modes
determine the preferred location of an activity, as illustrated in figure 2. At and around
transit nodes belong activities with a spatial reach matching the scale of operation (and
thus the speed) of the transit system and a high intensity of use (for example, concen-
trations of office, leisure, shopping). Acceptable travel times to and from the transit
node determine the extent of the `nodal areas' where origins (homes) and destinations
(work, free-time), respectively, are located. Cycling and walking are the most suitable
travel modes for activities with a low spatial reach (for example, use of local services,
neighborhood visits). Crucially, only activities with middle to high spatial reach and
low intensity of use (for example, living, working, or recreating in low densities) are
best served by the car system. This is because in these cases only the speed and the
flexibility of the car cannot be matched by the alternatives.
The diagram in figure 2 can be usefully employed to characterize existing urban
systems. Los Angeles, for instance, is a city where most activity and mobility patterns
fall into the `car environment' type; Hong Kong can be best characterized as a `transit
environment'; and many European historic city centers still function as `walking and
cycling environments'. The diagram can, however, also be used in a more normative
way, and this is the central thesis of this paper: it is a combination of environments
exploiting the specificities of each that allows the highest accessibility with the lowest
dependence on the car, or `urban development without more mobility by car'. In other
words, where transport modes other than the car are or can be a competitive way of
linking spatially disjointed activities, transport, land use, and other policy measures
should enhance rather than frustrate this possibility.
The essential elements of the ensuing multimodal urban ^ regional morphology are
illustrated in figure 3, where a schematic transport infrastructure network determines the
Regional reach,
Urban reach
high intensity of use
high intensity
of use

Regional reach,
lower intensity
of use (car)

Interregional reach,
Local reach high intensity of use
(walk, cycle)

Urban transit
(mean distance 3 km)
Origins (homes)
Regional transit
(mean distance 30 km)
Interregional transit Destinations (workplaces,
(mean distance 300 km) other facilities)

Highway

Figure 3. Principles of multimodal urban ^ regional development: morphological scheme.

580 L Bertolini, F le Clercq

location of activities according to their spatial reach and intensity of use, following the
criteria identified in figure 2. Activities with high spatial reach and high intensity of use
are around transit nodes; activities with low spatial reach are in walking and cycling
environments; and only activities with middle to high spatial reach and low intensity of
use are dependent on the use of the car. In practice, either the spatial pattern of activities
or the pattern of the transport infrastructure could be the starting point of development.
In the following sections we discuss developments in the Amsterdam urban region in
the Netherlands in order to underpin empirically the strategy being suggested here.
In section 4 we introduce the region and its historical and current transport and land-
use patterns. In section 5 we show some evidence of `urban development without more
mobility by car' at the level of the whole urban region. In section 6 we extend the
analysis to local components of the region following the environment types identified in
figures 2 and 3.

4 Transport and land-use patterns in the Amsterdam urban region

The Amsterdam urban region is an intriguing example of a development pattern
which, in many ways, recalls the ideal typical model illustrated in figures 2 and 3.
Its structure is partly planned and has partly emerged out of historic patterns and
market trends. Behind the instantaneous picture there is, of course, a continuous
transformation process marked by all sorts of contradictions and discussions. Our
objective in this paper is, however, not so much to explain how all this came about
(although this is a very relevant point and intriguing story), nor to take a stand on
current dilemmas (for this, see le Clercq and Bertolini, 2003), but rather to explore
whether such an urban ^ regional development pattern can be an effective one.
The network that can be detected in figure 4 is built upon the historic pattern of
the city of Amsterdam and other cities around it, such as Haarlem, Zaanstad, and
Hilversum. These smaller cities have become specialized centers in the region: for
example, Haarlem is a tourist center, but also accommodates the headquarters of a
major international publisher and other publishing-related activities; Zaanstad origi-
nally hosted a number of food-processing industries and is still the location of the
international headquarters of Ahold (the retailer); Hilversum was one of the first
residential suburbs of Amsterdam (together with the Haarlem area), and today boasts
an impressive concentration of broadcasting organizations, etc. Planned, more recent,
centers outside Amsterdam include new towns such as Hoofddorp near Schiphol air-
port and, most importantly, Almere which is located on land that was reclaimed as
recently as the 1960s. With a population of around 150 000, Almere is the fastest
expanding city in the Netherlands and is working strongly on its as yet relatively
weak employment base by trying to attract advanced industries in the multimedia,
leisure, and information and telecommunication sectors.
At the level of this evolving urban regional network, the central transport plan-
ning challenges of the last hundred years have been to develop adequate heavy rail
linkages between secondary centers and the `mother' city of Amsterdam and, later, to
connect the region into the national motorway grid. Today, with increasing special-
ization and the expansion of activities in the intermediate zones, the challenge is
rather the development of a regional transit system and the introduction of hierar-
chies in the motorway system which will allow for the fact that different cities, towns,
and major exurban activity concentrations function as complementary centers in a
more horizontal fashion.
As far as the structure of the core city of Amsterdam is concerned, a crucial turn
has been the development since the mid 1970s, of the motorway ring A10 and new
railway links to the west (via Schiphol airport) and the east (via Almere). This has been
Urban development without more mobility by car? 581

0 5 10 km

Built-up areas Railway

Airport Motorway
Seaport Railway station

Figure 4. The Amsterdam region, with main infrastructure and (sub)centers.

accompanied by the concentration of large offices and urban facilities alongside the
newly constructed tangential infrastructure, particularly to the south of the core city (in
locations such as Zuid and Bijlmer, also known as the `Zuidas', or `South Axis'). Current
trends in the spatial distribution of activities in the city are a vivid example of how the
growing differentiation in accessibility resulting from the evolution of the transport
infrastructure has become an essential factor in shaping the transformation of the form
and the use of the urban space. Intriguingly, many of the ideal typical combinations
identified in section 3 of this paper are matched by these developments, and similar
trends can be observed in smaller cities in the region.
As well as the historic city center (around Central Station, or CS in figure 4), which
still enjoys the best accessibility by transit, several nodes have emerged which typically
combine excellent accessibility both by public and by private transport. The most
important of these new nodes is the international airport of Schiphol, which provides
a unique combination of intercontinental air links and direct connection to the regional
and national motorway and railway networks. The airport area has become the focus
of a rich and diverse concentration of activities (including office, conference, hotel,
retail, and logistics). Office rents there are the highest in the country and the employ-
ment baseöat around 50 000öis comparable with that in the historic city center.
Other older and newer nodes are also increasingly the focus of specific concentrations.
Large-scale office complexes, and financial and business services in particular, have been
clustering around the railway stations of Sloterdijk (for example, Teleport), Lelylaan
(World Fashion Centre), Amstel (Philips, Worldcom), Zuid (World Trade Center, the
ABN ^ AMRO and ING banks). The area between Bijlmer station and the A2 motorway
appears to be a preferred location for combined warehouse and office complexes,
582 L Bertolini, F le Clercq

including an extremely dynamic information and communication technology (ICT)

sector (with, among others, the European headquarters of Cisco). In these locations
firms enjoy, as well as the availability of space, excellent access both to the regional
labor market and to metropolitan facilities including the airport. Urban centers else-
where in the region, such the previously mentioned Almere or Zaanstad, are also
experiencing growth as business locations, particularly as far as back offices are
concerned. Many specialized small-scale professional services have, on the other
hand, remained faithful to the walking and cycling environment of the historic city
center, which is also proving an ideal breeding ground for up and coming Internet and
multimedia businesses.
A similar differentiation may be also observed in the distribution of urban facili-
ties; most noticeably: new hospitals along the A10 motorway ring; the RAI congress
and exhibition center, the Insurance Exchange, the District Tribunal and the Free
University around Zuid station; and a giant retail and leisure complex at Bijlmer
station. At the same time, more finely grained shopping, entertainment, and cultural
activities have continued to thrive in the old city. Reinforcing this trend, after an
unfortunate attempt at downtown-style office development between the 1980s and
1990s, a number of large cultural facilities have recently been or will shortly be opened
along the southern IJ-river banks, east and west of Central Station.
In addition, and although the dynamism is somewhat more limited, residential
choices (at least, of those who can choose!) also appear to be increasingly influenced
by the differences between, in addition to other factors, more and less accessible, more
and less intensely used, urban areas. For instance, the walking and cycling environ-
ments of the historic `canal belt' of Amsterdam and the car environments of the green
suburbs of `t Gooi around Hilversum or Bloemendaal around Haarlem are both highly
desired residential environments, albeit desired by different populations. Furthermore,
there are signs of an emerging demand for high-quality apartments in the direct
surroundings of the main multimodal nodes.

5 Mobility trends at the urban ^ regional level

The process of specialization (which is partly market driven, partly planned) of the
urban ^ regional space described above is currently being translated in a more deliber-
ate strategy aimed at the development of a regional metropolis of complementary,
connected, locations. Transport infrastructure is seen as a main tool in the structuring
of this envisaged `network city'. The way in which this strategy is taking shape and the
obstacles, particularly institutional, which are still in the way would be worth a paper
in themselves. However, and as already stated, our central object in this paper is,
rather, connecting this empirical evidence to the general argument on sustainability
and accessibility. Is there any evidence of `urban development without more mobility
by car' in the Amsterdam urban region? In order to answer this question we turn now
to an analysis of the mobility patterns that have characterized the recent evolution of
the region. In section 6 we break down the analysis to the level of the environment
types identified in figures 2 and 3.
The diagrams in figures 5 and 6 illustrate how, in the Amsterdam region, growth in
population and jobs has been matched by a stable modal split, where transit and the
bicycle (walking is not included in these statistics) hold a significant, and even increas-
ing share. In particular, figure 5 shows how the growth rate of car trips has been lower
than both the growth rate of the population and the growth rate of jobs. Transit use is
growing the fastest, as this, rather than car use, appears to cater for the increase in the
scale of operation (from local to regional) of the urban system. This can be seen as an
indication of the potential for the development of transit environments, and of the
Urban development without more mobility by car? 583

120
Growth

100

1990 1995 2000

Population Jobs Car trips

Transit trips Bicycle trips

Figure 5. Amsterdam region: trends in the growth of population, jobs, and trips by mode
between 1991 and 1998 (1991 ˆ 100; walking not included) (source: Dienst Infrastructuur,
Verkeer en Vervoer, 2000).

100
23 23

80
23 25

60
Split (%)

54 52

40

20

0
1990 1995 2000
Car Public transport Bicycle
Figure 6. Amsterdam region: modal split trends between 1991 and 1998 (walking not included)
(source: Dienst Infrastructuur, Verkeer en Vervoer, 2000).

realization of such potential. The growing scale of operation of the system may also
partly explain the relative stagnation of bicycle use in the region.
All in all, the pattern in the Amsterdam region seems to suggest that the realization
of the specific potential of all sorts of mobility environmentsöcar, transit, and walking
and cycling environmentsöis a workable strategy which combines both accessibility
(indirectly documented by the continuing growth in population and jobs) and sustain-
ability (the relatively high share of environmentally friendly modes). As the qualitative
description of trends in the spatial distribution of activities suggests, there appears in
Amsterdam to be a high degree of (potential) complementarity between the different
mobility environments. In the next section we explore this claim in some detail.

6 Mobility trends at the local level

6.1 Introduction
Analyses of activity and mobility patterns that match the environments identified in
sections 3 and 4 of this paper are not standard, as infrastructure networks and their
areas of influence, rather than administrative units, should be the leading criteria for
the collection and analysis of data. However, there are some recent studies that do
approximate this and provide useful insights in the emergence and evolution of mobility
environments in the Amsterdam urban region. Three such studies are discussed in this
section. The first is an analysis at the level of the whole Randstad, the highly urbanized
584 L Bertolini, F le Clercq

area in the west of the Netherlands of which the Amsterdam urban region is a major
component. The second set of data is focused on trends in different parts of Amsterdam.
The third study is focused on a particularly interesting section of the urban region
and the city as typified in figure 4: the development corridor connecting some of the
major, most dynamic, subcenters ömost notably including the Zuidas (South Axis).
6.2 Emerging modal specialization in the Randstad
Table 1 documents transport-mode trends, between 1986/87 and 1997 for a range of
spatial relationships in the Randstad. For this purpose the Randstad has been divided
into three area types: large cities, their agglomerations, and the rest (see figure 7). In
the Amsterdam urban region, the large-city area type corresponds with the municipal
Table 1. Randstad, modal split of all trips (other than walking) (source: Goudappel Coffeng,
1999b).

Type of As % of all trips Modal split 1986/87 (%) Modal split 1997 (%)
relationshipa b
1986/87 1997 car train btm bicycle car train btmb bicycle

within lg 36.7 33.3 49.2 0.5 14.5 35.8 42.6 0.6 11.9 44.9
lg ± owa 6.5 6.8 66.1 4.7 13.8 15.4 66.6 5.1 12.1 16.2
lg ± lg 2.2 2.9 67.3 26.6 4.6 1.6 56.0 38.9 3.6 1.6
lg ± ota 1.3 1.8 81.2 10.8 2.2 5.8 74.8 18.2 3.1 3.9
lg ± r 8.8 9.1 71.2 9.1 10.1 9.6 71.3 11.7 8.7 8.3
within a 12.7 12.8 52.9 0.1 2.6 44.1 51.2 0.2 1.9 46.7
a±r 3.8 4.6 80.1 3.0 4.4 12.6 80.5 3.5 3.3 12.6
within r 27.9 28.6 54.4 0.4 1.7 43.5 55.0 0.6 0.9 43.6
Total 100.0 100.0 56.2 2.3 8.2 33.4 54.2 3.4 6.4 36.0
a lgÐlarge city; aÐagglomeration; owaÐown agglomeration; otaÐother agglomeration;
rÐrest of Randstad.
b btmÐbus, tram, metro.

Large cities Large-city agglomerations Other

Figure 7. Randstad area types (source: Goudappel Coffeng, 1999b).
Urban development without more mobility by car? 585

territories of Amsterdam and Haarlem (roughly corresponding to the built-up areas in

figure 4); neighboring municipalities constitute the agglomeration. Similar criteria have
been adopted for other parts of the Randstad.
The data in table 1 reveal a marked modal specialization of relationship types. For
instance, car and bicycle dominate mobility `within' all area types. The train has a
significantly above-average share of large city ^ large city relationships and in large
city ^ other agglomerations relationships. In all other long-distance relationships the
car is virtually hegemonic. Especially intriguing in the context of this paper is that in
most cases this specialization of mobility environmentsöand with it, arguably, their
complementarityöhas been growing. Within agglomerations, the rest of the Randstad,
and above all within large cities, the bicycle is increasing its share not only at the
expense of public transport but also of the car, signaling the further consolidation of a
walking and cycling environment there. Also, several car environments seem to be
strengthening their profile, albeit less spectacularly, as trends in relationships with
and within the rest of the Randstad testify. Third, trends in large city ^ large city, and
large city ^ other agglomerations trips document the emergence of transit environ-
ments. The aggregate result of this increasing specialization is comparable with that
for the Amsterdam urban region as shown in section 5: a stable, and relatively sustain-
able, modal split in the face of a growth in total mobility. As far as the future is
concerned, possibly the most important question is whether public transport will
be able to cater for the growth in the spatial scale of relationships, indirectly documented
by the decreasing share of `within' trips. An alternative, or rather complementary,
challenge is that of exploring the scope for containment of the growth of the average
distance traveled, namely, by providing more spatial opportunities within a given area
(through densification and diversification of land uses).
6.3 Modal trends within Amsterdam
Table 2 breaks down the trends discussed in section 6.2 at the Amsterdam municipality
level. For this purpose, the city has been divided in three area types: the historic inner
city, the prewar city, and the postwar city (see figure 8, over). Here too a growing
modal specialization can be detected. In the historic inner city and in the prewar
cityöor the city within the ring roadöthe bicycle has been reinforcing and gaining,
respectively, a dominant position in total trips at the expense both of public transport
and of the car. In the postwar cityöor the city outside of the ring roadöthe car has
been strengthening its dominance, mainly at the expense of the bicycle. The cumulative
modal trend at the scale of the municipality is that of a growing share of the bicycle in
the total amount of trips, and a decline in the shares both of the car and of public
transport, in the face of a 6% growth in households and a 4% growth in jobs between
1990 and 1997 within the municipality boundaries. This can be seen as a stable, and
relatively sustainable, modal split. However, average travel distances, in particular
and not surprisingly those by all forms of motorized transport, have been increasing
Table 2. Modal split in the Amsterdam municipality, excluding walking (source: Dienst Infra-
structuur, Verkeer en Vervoer, 1999a).

Mode Historic inner city Prewar city Postwar city Amsterdam

1980 1997 1980 1997 1980 1997 1980 1990 1997

Public 25 21 27 24 25 25 28 26 25
transport
Bicycle 42 53 32 40 28 22 30 32 35
Car 33 27 40 36 47 53 42 42 40
586 L Bertolini, F le Clercq

Historic inner city

Prewar city

Postwar city

0 5 10 km

Built-up areas Railway

Airport Motorway
Seaport Railway station
Figure 8. Amsterdam area types (source: adapted from Dienst Infrastructuur, Verkeer en Vervoer,
1999a).

in the same period, resulting in a 31% growth of the per capita distance traveled by car
between 1990 and 1997 (all data from Dienst Infrastructuur, Verkeer en Vervoer, 1999b).
This takes us back to the policy challenges identified in the preceding section: the need
to significantly increase the share of public transport in the longer trips, or to limit the
growth of average distances through land-use measures (or a combination of the two).
As far as the limitation of growth of average distances is concerned, modal trends in
the prewar city are particularly interesting. Here, much infill development has taken
place in the period under scrutiny. There is currently a shift of focus of this urban
renewal effort (densification, diversification) to the postwar neighborhoods which
could increase the scope for cycling and walking there as well. As far as the first
challenge is concernedöthe potential role of public transportöthe analysis of modal
choice before and after opening of the Ring Line metro in the next section also
provides some interesting clues.
6.4 Mobility trends before and after opening of the Ring Line metro
Table 3 documents trends in the modal split of people working within the direct area of
influence of the Ring Line metro (see figure 9), before and after its opening in 1997. This

Table 3. Modal choice (excluding walking) of people working in the area of influence of the Ring
Line metro, before and after its opening (source: Dienst Infrastructuur, Verkeer en Vervoer, 2001).

Type of trip Before opening of the After opening of the

Ring Line (%) Ring Line (%)

car public transport bicycle car public transport bicycle

Home to work 47 43 10 40 51 9
Business 62 25 13 53 36 11
Urban development without more mobility by car? 587

0 2.5 5 km

Built-up areas Railway Railway station

Airport Metro Area of influence
Seaport Motorway
Figure 9. Area of influence of the Ring Line metro (source: adapted from Dienst Infrastructuur,
Verkeer en Vervoer, 2001).

metro line is particularly important as it runs within a significant part of Amsterdam's

most important growth corridor, connecting many of the nodes described in section 4
and including the Zuidas, or South AxisöAmsterdam's most important office develop-
ment location around Zuid station. The opening of the Ring Line has made this stretch
of the growth corridor multimodal by all means: exceptionally accessible by car,
national and regional train, and high-quality local public transport. This is not yet
true of other parts of the corridor, most notably towards Schiphol, where a metro line is
under discussion but not yet built.
The data in table 3 show two interesting things in the context of this paper. The
first is that even in a relatively peripheral, highly dynamic, development area the modal
split can be relatively sustainableöif public transport provision is adequate. The
second is that introduction of the Ring Line metro, or full realization of the multi-
modality of the corridor, has further increased this sustainability. These results appear
even more important when put in the context of the spatial dynamics in the area of
influence of the Ring Line metro. It is precisely in this part of the urban region where
most growth of employment is expected in the future: an estimated 39.4% increase in
jobs between 1996 and 2010, as opposed to a 1.8% increase in the area within the
motorway ring, and a 31.8% increase in the rest of the agglomeration (Dienst Infra-
structuur, Verkeer en Vervoer, 1999b). Interestingly, much of the expected employment
growth in the rest of the agglomeration is concentrated in the airport area, stressing
the importance of extending the metro system, and thus the multimodal corridor, in
that direction.

7 Conclusions
In the first part of this paper, a transport and land-use strategy linking the improve-
ment of sustainability and of accessibility was sketched. In the second part, the
588 L Bertolini, F le Clercq

example of the Amsterdam urban region was used to show that this is a workable
strategy. A detailed discussion of the role of specific policy measures, as opposed to
autonomous developments, in this evolution, although important, falls outside the
scope of this paper (for this, see le Clercq and Bertolini, 2003). However, figure 1 can
be usefully referred to in order to mention some of the main policy elements that have
contributed to the trends described above. At the level of cycling and walking environ-
ments, an essential measure has been the widespread development of dedicated, most
notably bicycle, infrastructure on the transport side, matched on the land-use side by
the renewal of historic neighborhoods and the development of new mixed-use neigh-
borhoods. As far as transit environments are concerned, substantial investment in
upgrading and expanding train (for example, the new tangential links) and metro
infrastructure (particularly the Ring Line) are important transport-policy elements.
Their impact has been positively reinforced by a land-use policy seeking the concen-
tration of large-scale offices and regional facilities around public transportation nodes.
In addition, the most significant policy dealing with car environments has been the
regulation of parking allowance, which has proved an invaluable tool in managing
the accessibility of locations, most notably within the municipality of Amsterdam.
With the help of figure 1, some of the upcoming challenges can be identified. At the
level of `without travel' mobility environmentsöhardly addressed by policy up to
nowöit could prove important to broaden the possibilities for teleworking and other
teleactivities by providing larger housing and perhaps also adjoining working space
and/or allowing for more flexible use. Increasingly, most businesses start in the home
but are soon constrained by space limitations. Investment in walking and cycling
infrastructure is still needed, but the continued success of walking and cycling environ-
ments also depends on the extent to which new and existing residential areas are able
to develop a critical mass of destinations (such as workplaces and facilities) within
short distances. As already mentioned, an essential condition for the support of transit
environments is that of the development of a comprehensive regional transit network
or, more precisely, making the current fragments function in a more integrated fashion.
The success of transit environments will, however, largely depend on land-use trends
and policies. The concentration around multimodal nodes of large-scale offices and
regional facilities remains crucial in this respect. Some of the major upcoming
challenges concern car environments, where accessibility management of the sort
implemented through parking regulations in the core city needs to be gradually
extended to the whole region and connected to measures to manage capacity on the
motorway network, including downgrading and upgrading of sections of the systems,
road pricing, and possibly a few new strategic links. Perhaps the main problem here is
that of the poor political acceptability of many such measures.
In more general terms, and perhaps most importantly, the fine-tuning of the
demand for and the supply of accessibility should become a more explicit goal of
transport and land-use planning than now is the case. If this does not happen,
upcoming challenges risk going unnoticed, and the positive results of past years may
be put at risk. In cities around the world the question of how to allow for a sustainable
and yet accessible urban system is a major issue. The specific answers to this question
need, of course, to be found in each local context. Other cities may be already more
successful than Amsterdam in this. However, in this paper we hope to have made at
least two things clear. The first is that there is much to be gained by striving for
synergy rather than competition in the contribution of different transport modes,
including nonmotorized ones, to enhancing accessibility. The second is that a condition
essential to the achievement of such synergy is the fine-tuning of the supply of mobility,
as provided by the transport system, and the demand for mobility, as originated by
Urban development without more mobility by car? 589

different land-use patterns. The approach presented in this paper may offer a useful
way to conceptualize this task as well as offering potential solutions.
Acknowledgements. We gratefully acknowledge the Ministry of Economic Affairs of the Netherlands
for financing through the Netherlands Agency for Energy and the Environment (NOVEM) this
research project. NOVEM has also provided useful feedback.
References
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, Dijst M, 2003, ``Mobility environments and network cities'' Journal of Urban Design
forthcoming
Bertolini L, le Clercq F, De Niet E, 2000 Naar een VervoersPrestatie voor de Regio. Eindrapportage
fase 1 [Towards a transport performance for the region. Final report of phase 1] Study Centre
for the Metropolitan Environment, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam
Breheny M, Rookwood R, 1993,``Planning the sustainable city region'', in Planning for a Sustainable
Environment Ed. A Blowers (Earthscan, London) pp 150 ^ 189
Calthorpe P, 1993 The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream
(Princeton Architectural Press, Princeton, NJ)
Cervero R, 1998 The Transit Metropolis: A Global Enquiry (Island Press, Washington, DC)
Dienst Infrastructuur, Verkeer en Vervoer, Postbus 95089, 1090 HB Amsterdam
1999a Beleidsevaluatie Verkeer en Vervoer 1998 [Traffic and transport policy evaluation 1998]
1999b Tussenrapportage AVVP [Interim report Amsterdam Traffic and Transport Plan]
2000 Ontwikkelingen in het verkeer en vervoer 1991 ^ 2010. Beleidsevaluatie RVVP [Developments
in traffic and transport 1991 ^ 2010]
2001 De Ringlijn: Evaluatie ^ onderzoek [The Ring Line: evaluation ^ research]
Downes J D, Emmerson P, 1985 Urban Travel Modeling with Flexible Travel Budgets Transport
Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berks RG11 6AU
Goudapel Coffeng, 1999a Synthese Personenvervoer: Ontwerpideee«n voor duurzaam personenvervoer
[Synthesis of passenger transport: design ideas for sustainable passenger transport] (Connekt,
Delft)
Goudappel Coffeng, 1999b Synthese Personenvervoer: Ruimtelijke Trends [Synthesis passenger
transport: spatial trends] (Connekt, Delft)
Ha«gestrand T, 1970, ``What about people in regional science?'' Papers of the Regional Science
Association 24 7 ^ 21
Hall P, Ward C, 1998 Sociable Cities: The Legacy of Ebenezer Howard (John Wiley, Chichester,
Sussex)
le Clercq F, Bertolini L, 2003, ``Achieving sustainable accessibility. An evaluation of policy
measures in the Amsterdam area'' Built Environment forthcoming
le Clercq F, de Vries J S, 2000, ``Public transport and the compact city'' Transportation in the
New Millenium TRB congress proceedings (Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC)
Meijers E, 2000 Knooppunten binnen stedelijke netwerken [Nodes within urban networks] (Catholic
University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen)
Ministerie van V&W, 1995 Visie op verstedelijking en mobiliteit: een bouwsteen voor de actualisering
van het ruimtelijk beleid na 2005 [Vision on urbanization and mobility: a building block for
the updating of spatial policy after 2005] Ministerie van Verkeer & Waterstaat [Ministry of
Transport, Public Water and Water Management], Den Haag
Newman P, Kenworthy J, 1991 Cities and Automobile Dependence (Gower Technical, Brookfield,
VT)
Newman P, Kenworthy J, 1999 Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence
(Island Press, Washington, DC)
Schafer A, Victor D, 1997, ``The past and future of global mobility'' Scientific American October,
pages 36 ^ 39
VHP & Goudappel Coffeng, 1999 Onderzoek naar typering van knopen [Research for a typology
of nodes] (VHP & Goudappel Coffeng, Postbus 9031 3007 AA, Rotterdam
Wegener M, Fu«rst F, 1999 Land-use Transport Interaction: State of the Art (Institut fu«r Raumplanung,
Dortmund)
Zahavi Y, 1974 Traveltime Budgets and Mobility in Urban Areas Report FHW PL-8183,
US Department of Transportation, Washington