Transportation policy as spatial planning tool; reducing urban sprawl by increasing travel costs and clustering infrastructure and public transportation

Abstract

Travel can affect land use just as land use affects travel behaviour of people. Low-cost travel, especially resulting from transportation improvements since the nineteenth century, has resulted in long-distance travel and urban sprawl, bringing along negative aspects such as traffic congestion and air pollution, but also reductions in biodiversity and public health. In order to try to partly reverse this process, the supply of infrastructure and public transportation can no longer follow the demand of transportation; the supply has to steer the demand. Infrastructure and high-quality public transportation should be clustered in and between large and regional cities. Increasing travel costs for car use (e.g., road pricing) can positively affect travel distances and travel mode choice, but also long-term decisions such as the residential location choice, stimulating compact, mixed-use developments. In this paper, we focus on Flanders, Belgium, a region where mobility policies stimulated long-distance travel and limited land use regulations did not hinder urban sprawl. Increasing travel costs combined with a more active spatial planning policy and a stronger cooperation between mobility policy and spatial planning can help to decrease car use and urban sprawl, but also change the way in which people perceive travel.

Keywords

Travel behaviour; Land use; Residential location choice; Transit-oriented development; Road pricing; Flanders

1. Introduction

Over the past decades increasing car use, accompanied with congestion, has resulted in growing environmental nuisance, limitations on economic growth and an uncontrolled spread of urban development (urban sprawl) in many western countries. Therefore governments have recently created documents (white papers) with strategies do decrease congestion and the burden of the transportation sector on the environment (see, for instance, European Commission, 2001, 2011). Improving facilities for active travel (walking and cycling) and public transportation and decreasing the emission of greenhouse gasses of cars are well-known measures to do so. Recently however, more complex measures are being considered or even implemented to reduce congestion. Road pricing, for instance, where external traffic-related costs are being internalised (based on the ‘user pays’ principle) can currently be found in policy documents (European Commission, 2001, 2011; Tillema et al., 2010b).

Although these interventions might result in a modal shift and reduced pollution, most of these documents only pay limited attention to the effects of the land use pattern on travel behaviour and vice versa. More compact, dense urban developments can result in more active travel and a higher public transportation ridership, while less long-distance (car) travel (e.g., by road pricing) can result in more people living in compact, mixed-use neighbourhoods. However, at present, transportation and spatial planning are mostly not integrated in a single policy document or vision.

In this paper we will analyse the link between travel behaviour and the built environment, emphasising on the interwoven character of these two elements (Section 2 and 3). In Section 4 we examine this link for the region of Flanders (Belgium). Section 5 deals with interventions to restrict urban sprawl and (long-distance) car use, resulting in a possible change in value that people give to travel, as discussed in Section 6. Section 7 presents the major conclusions.

2. The effects of travel behaviour on land use pattern

The impact of transportation on location choices and land use has attracted much less attention from researchers than the influence of land use on transportation (Tillema et al., 2010b). However, transportation improvements since the end of the nineteenth century have, to a large extent, affected the land use pattern of especially European and North American cities (Arbury, 2005; Brueckner, 2000; Dittmar et al., 2004; Glaeser & Kahn, 2004; Newman, 1992; Newman & Kenworthy, 1996). The industrial revolution, starting at the end of the eighteenth century in the United Kingdom, encouraged great numbers of people to live in urban areas as factory work replaced many former farm jobs. These small and dense cities, where all destinations were within a reasonable walking distance (the walking city (Newman & Kenworthy, 1996)), rapidly became overpopulated and were considered dirty and dangerous. They were regarded as the places where diseases and riots developed. In order to solve these social problems, a utopian way of looking at residing in more peaceful, low-density environments with green surroundings emerged (Benevolo, 1993; Davoudi & Stead, 2002; Howard, 1902). The technological development of passenger trains in industrialised countries (e.g., United Kingdom, Belgium) at the end of the nineteenth century made it possible for factory workers to live in the countryside and work in the city. This resulted in a first wave of urban sprawl; cities spread outwards generating sub-centres around transportation nodes such as train and tram stations; the transit city (Newman & Kenworthy, 1996) developed (Dittmar et al., 2004; Newman, 1992). A second wave of urban sprawl emerged after the Second World War. The technological development of the automobile, beginning before the war, becomes a dominant form of development after the war. It became the transportation technology that shaped the land; the car made it possible to develop in almost every direction. Low-density suburban neighbourhoods, designed to be well-accessible for cars, arose in most western countries which gave rise to the automobile city (Newman & Kenworthy, 1996). People were no longer forced to live either near their place of employment or a transit station to transport them there (Gillham, 2002; Glaeser and Kahn, 2004).

This urban sprawl can also be approached from a micro-economic approach. According to micro-economic location theories, especially developed in the 1960’s (see for example, Alonso, 1964; Wingo, 1961), households trade off transportation costs and land prices in order to find their ideal residential location, whereby living close to a city centre is characterized by high land prices and low transportation costs and living farther away from a city centre with low land prices and high transportation costs. However some studies (Clark et al., 2003, van Ommeren et al., 1999) state that travel costs still play a significant role in residential location choice (and people trade off location costs with travel costs), most studies criticize these theories since they seem to overemphasize the importance of travel costs (Giuliano, 1989; O’Farrell & Markham, 1975; Weisbrod et al., 1980). More recent studies indicate that house/neighbourhood-related characteristics are more important than travel-related factors in the residential location choice (Molin & Timmermans, 2003; Rouwendal &

Meijer, 2001). Developments in technology - making transportation improvements possible - and investments in transportation infrastructure have reduced travel costs (transportation became faster and cheaper) making land prices more important in residential location choices, resulting in households choosing to live in remote areas with low land prices. This explains why faster and cheaper transportation has not resulted in reduced travel times and reduced expenditures of households on travel (Glaeser & Kohlhase, 2004; Metz, 2008; Schafer & Victor, 2000). People responded to these transportation improvements by travelling longer distances - compensating for the increased speed and reduced costs - making it possible to reside farther away from a city centre, initiating urban sprawl (Brueckner, 2000).

Not only transportation improvements have made travel cheap. Long-distance travel (by car or public transportation) in most western countries is rather cheap due to a number of reasons. First of all, travel costs are low since people do not pay full costs. Car users, for instance, only pay for the internal costs of their travel (e.g., purchase of the car, fuel, insurance), but do not pay the costs they cause to third parties. These external costs, such as congestion, air and noise pollution are paid by all tax payers and not only by those people who cause them (especially car users). Besides, employees often receive a company car with accompanying fuel card, which they use both for work and non-work trips, as part of their wage packet, especially in countries with a high burden of taxation. People using a company car travel longer distances and have a higher car use (Shiftan et al., 2012; Vanoutrive et al., 2012). Furthermore, nearly all countries of the world have incorporated social objectives in their public transportation policy (e.g. low transportation rates for labourers living in the countryside), further increasing long-distance travel. Public transportation prices are also often regressive (prices per kilometre are lower for long distances than for short distances), stimulating long-distance travel (e.g., Blauwens et al., 2008; Button, 2010). Since people do not pay full price for car use and public transportation use, an overconsumption of long-distance travel is the result, partly explaining the urban sprawl that has occurred in most western countries in the past decades.

3. Influence of the built environment on travel behaviour

The overconsumption of travel (due to transportation improvements and cheap travel) has shaped the land use pattern around (especially European and North-American) cities over the past decades. This has resulted in different types of residential neighbourhoods where people might live in. An extensive number of (especially) Northern-American studies have analysed the effects of the built environment on travel behaviour, especially of people living in urban and suburban areas. Urban neighbourhoods (also referred to as neo-traditional neighbourhoods) - generally built before the Second World War - characterised by narrow streets, ‘X’-intersections and small building blocks seem to discourage car use. Suburban neighbourhoods on the other hand - mostly built after the Second World War - have a more random street pattern, lot of ‘T’-intersections and dead-end streets (‘cul de sacs’). These neighbourhoods were built with good car accessibility in mind, but without taking public transportation, walking and cycling into account. Not surprisingly the car is by a large margin the most used travel mode in suburban areas (for example, Cervero, 1996; Cervero & Radisch, 1996; Frank & Pivo, 1994, Friedman et al., 1994). In urban areas car use is notably lower; however, the share of car use varies between different cities. Table 1 indicates that in major cities of North-America and Australia/New Zealand the car still remains the most used travel mode by a large margin, while in other (European and Asian) cities, the use of public transportation, walking and

cycling can exceed car use. These differences can, to a large extent, be explained by differences in population densities; low densities seem to result in high car use (e.g., North-America; Australia/New Zealand), while high densities (mainly in Asia) seem to discourage car use (Kenworthy, 2006; Kenworthy & Laube, 1999, 2001; Schwanen, 2002; Van Acker & Witlox, 2010).

Table 1. Modal split and population density in major cities of seven world regions (Source: Kenworthy, 2006; Kenworthy & Laube, 2001).

Australia;New

ZealandCanada China Eastern

Europe

High income

Asia

Western Europe USA

Active travel (%) 16 10 65 26 28 31 8

Public transportation (%) 5 9 19 47 30 19 3

Motorised private modes (%) 79 81 16 27 42 50 89

Population density (inh./km2) 1500 2600 14,600 5300 15,000 5500 1450Number of cities 5 5 4 6 8 35 10

According to Cervero and Cockelman (1997), the built environment can be subdivided into three dimensions which affect travel behaviour: (i) density, (ii) diversity and (iii) design. High-density neighbourhoods (i) are characterised by short distances, increasing the share of walking and cycling. Furthermore, public transportation can be organised most efficiently in dense areas, offering high-frequency public transportation lines to a large share of the neighbourhoods’ residents. Diversity (ii) seems to have a quite similar effect as density on travel mode choice. A high diversity decreases distances, whereby walking and cycling is stimulated. Finally, the design of streets (iii) can favour certain travel modes. Many suburban streets, for instance, are oriented towards car accessibility, almost neglecting cyclists and pedestrians, while pedestrian-oriented streets (mostly in city centres) encourage residents to walk, bike, or take transit as substitutes for automobile travel.

Since more and more studies made clear that people residing in dense and diverse neighbourhoods have a lower care use, urban planners have tried, since the 1990’s, to influence travel behaviour by adapting the built environment. Concepts such as New Urbanism (in the USA) and the Compact City (in Europe) aim to reduce car use and travel distances by creating neighborhoods with a high density, a high diversity and a design oriented toward public transportation and non-motorized travel (Cervero, 1996; De Vos et al., 2012a; Friedman et al., 1994; Schwanen and Mokhtarian, 2005; Boussauw & Witlox, 2010; Boussauw et al., 2013). Some countries (e.g., The Netherlands) were quite successful in clustering activities in urban areas due to active spatial planning policies, whereby the rise of car use was limited (Dieleman et al., 1999; Schwanen et al., 2004). Other countries (e.g., USA, Belgium), with a limited amount of spatial planning regulations were less successful in restricting urban sprawl, resulting in high car use (Albrechts, 1999; Ewing, 1997).

4. The case of Flanders

In the preceding literature review we have shown how travel can affect land use and vice versa. In this section we will analyse this link for the Flanders Region, Belgium (surface area: 13 500 km 2; inhabitants: 6 300 000; population density: 466 inhabitants/km2 (http://www.statbel.fgov.be/)). We

will analyse how transportation improvements - accompanied with unclear and often non-stringent spatial planning regulations - since the end of the nineteenth century have shaped the land use pattern and how this pattern now affects travel behaviour of the Flemings. 4.1 Transportation improvements shaping the Flemish land use pattern

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Belgium was the first country of the European continent where the industrial revolution developed, creating a lot of employment in cities. The vast majority of today’s Flemish cities had fairly well-defined boundaries, often in the physical shape of medieval ramparts. Since the overwhelming majority of employees had neither the time nor the money to commute, many moved from the countryside to the city to live in close proximity to their work. In order to prevent a further immigration of labourers to the overpopulated and unhygienic cities Belgium constructed (starting in 1835) the most densified network of trams and trains of all industrial countries.1 Together with cheap public transportation passes (starting from 1869) labourers were now able to commute easily between the city and the countryside. Furthermore, cheap government loans enabled a lot of households to build or buy (mostly detached) dwellings on the countryside.2 This ‘anti-urban’ policy, in combination with nearly any spatial planning regulations, resulted in a first wave of urban sprawl; residing far away from the workplace was made possible resulting in a strong suburbanisation and a dispersed land use pattern (De Decker, 2011; De Vos et al., 2012b; Kesteloot & De Maesschalk, 2001; Verhetsel et al., 2010).

After the Second World War, urban sprawl accelerated even further. The rise of car use made it easier to reside almost everywhere on the countryside, also in places which were difficult to access by train. Suburban, low-density neighbourhoods with good car accessibility emerged scattered around the Flemish region. The weak spatial planning policies conducted in Flanders did not hinder the geographical distribution of facilities. In fact, spatial plans (zoning plans) in the 1970’s (so-called ‘Regional Plans’) designated territories, spread around the region, as residential area or prospective residential area, based on expected population growth. Also other zonal destinations (e.g., industrial areas) were not clustered, but scattered around over almost all municipalities (Albrechts, 1999; Allaert, 2008). This has resulted in a strongly urbanized region where open spaces have become scarce over the last decades. A large part of the available space has already been built up by buildings, infrastructure and all sorts of other activities. Flanders Region can therefore be considered as a type of a diffuse city (De Decker, 2011; De Geyter et al., 2002). City and countryside fade into one another; the border is hard to draw (Fig. 1). This has resulted in a limited amount of big cities (only three cities exceed 100 000 inhabitants; i.e. Antwerp: 500 000 inhabitants; Ghent: 250 000 inhabitants and Bruges: 120 000 inhabitants), where only 13.6% of the Flemings live in. Most Flemings (62.2%) now live in small cities (with less than 50 000 inhabitants) or in rural municipalities (http://www.statbel.fgov.be).

1 In practice, this network was not only constructed for the ease of the labourers but also to prevent riots and the development of labour unions in cities. 2 This was mainly stimulated by catholic ideas, where individual values (such as an own detached dwelling with garden) were perceived very important.

Figure 1. Built-up space (indicated in red) of the Flemish Region in 2010 (Source: http://www.milieurapport.be).

The ‘Spatial Structure Plan of Flanders’, the most recent spatial planning instrument of Flanders (ratified in 1997 by the Flemish government), tries to counteract urban sprawl by introducing a more active oriented form of planning. The most important spatial principle in this plan is called ‘deconcentrated clustering’. This concept suggests that residential areas, business areas and other kinds of activities need to be clustered in cities and town centres (‘clustering’), taking in account the existing dispersed land use pattern (‘deconcentrated’) (Albrechts et al., 2003; Scheers, 2006). In order to realise this goal, this plan limits the amount of additional dwellings permitted to build in countryside municipalities to maximum 40%. The ‘Spatial Structure Plan for Flanders’ strives for at least 60% of additional dwellings in urban areas (Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, 1997, 2011). 4.2 The effect of the Flemish land use on travel behaviour

In order to analyse travel behaviour in Flanders, we make use of a survey conducted by the Flemish Government: ‘Research Travel Behaviour (3)’ (OVG 3). This survey was executed during the period from September 2007 to September 2008. This research contains information about travel distance, travel time, travel mode choice and the origin and destination of different types of trips (commute trips, leisure trips and shopping trips) (Witlox, 2007). Furthermore, also socio-demographic factors of respondents were asked for. The sample survey contained 8800 respondents, of which 6781 were retained after data cleaning. The respondents were asked to note down all trips of a random chosen day. This inquiry happened face-to-face and the answers were glanced through together with the interviewer (http://www.mobielvlaanderen.be).

We subdivided the respondents according to their place of residence. Five categories were retained: Large cities (cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants); Regional cities (cities with more than 50 000 and less than 100 000 inhabitants); Suburbs (suburban municipalities of big and regional cities); Small cities (cities with less than 50 000 inhabitants) and Countryside. Since Flanders is a highly urbanised region lacking large cities, only a small share of Flemings (24.9 %) lives in big or regional cities (respectively 13.6 and 11.3%); 12.9% lives in suburbs of these cities, 20.6% lives in small cities and 41.6% of the Flemish population lives in the countryside. People living in suburban and rural municipalities are, in this sample, slightly overrepresented, while residents from big cities are slightly

underrepresented. Most socio-demographic factors of respondents from different residential neighbourhoods are rather similar. Some differences can be found in education and the household composition. The share of highly educated respondents is highest in big cities and lowest in the countryside, while households in big cities have fewer members than households in other types of municipalities. However, transportation-related aspects differ most. Respondents living in highly-urbanised municipalities have a lower household car possession and a lower distance from their dwelling to the nearest public transportation stop (bus/tram/underground) or railway station (train) (Table 2).

Table 2: Socio-economic factors, distance to public transportation and average population density in different residential locations.a

Large city Regional city Suburb Small city Countryside

Average age (year) 42.8 41.2 40.6 41.2 40.8Gender (female) 47.2% 48.1% 44.6% 46.1% 48.2%Education (high education) 37.9% 32.4% 31.7% 26.3% 26.5%Personal income (high income) 40.7% 40.8% 40.0% 40.6% 38.7%Household car possession (≥2 cars) 22.6% 37.5% 45.3% 45.6% 47.5%Average household members 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.2Employment status: Student 16.3% 20.4% 22.9% 19.9% 20.9% Employed 57.6% 54.0% 53.5% 55.8% 55.3% Unemployed 7.2% 8.9% 8.6% 8.0% 9.0% Retired 18.9% 16.7% 14.9% 16.3% 14.7%Average distance to nearest public transportation stop (km)

0.42 0.54 0.75 0.87 1.05

Average distance to nearest railway station (km)

3.09 2.72 5.02 4.14 8.86

Average population density (inhabitants/km2)

1736 1039 654 672 317

N 807 758 917 1421 2878% 11.9% 11.2% 13.5% 21.0% 42.4%a high education = respondents with a bachelor or masters’ degree; high income = net personal income higher than 1500 euro/month.

4.2.1 Travel mode choice and travel distances in Flanders

Figure 2 indicates that the level of urbanisation has an important influence on the travel mode choice (commute trips, leisure trips and shopping trips combined). Car use is highest in suburbs, small cities and countryside; more than 60% of the trips are being made by car. Only people living in big cities use the car for less than half of the trips, which is comparable with car use in major West European cities (see Table 1). Walking and the use of public transportation is the highest in big cities and decreases as the residential area becomes less urbanized. The level of bicycling seems less influenced by the built environment; in all areas, bicycle use fluctuates between 12 and 18%. The fact that bicycling is not higher in urban municipalities than in the more rural municipalities can be partly explained by the competition with public transportation, which is best organised in urban areas. However, public transportation use is considerably lower and the use of active travel is considerably

higher in Flanders’ big cities compared with major West European cities (see Table 1).3 The discussed travel mode choice can be partly explained by travel distances (Figure 3). Due to high densities and diversities in big cities, a lot of trips can be covered on foot or by bicycle. More than 30% of the trips lies within reasonable walking distance (≤ 1km), more than 50% within reasonable cycling distance (≤ 3km) and 70% of the trips can easily be covered with urban public transportation (≤ 5km). 4 The amount of short trips decreases with decreasing levels of urbanisation. In the countryside only 20% of the trips lies within reasonable walking distance, less than 40% within cycling distance and around 50% within reasonable public transportation distance.5

Big city Regional city

Suburb Small city Countryside0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Car

Public transportation

Bicycle

Walking

U s er s ( % )

Figure 2. Travel mode choice within different types of residential municipality.

Big city Regional city Suburb Small city Countryside0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

≤ 1km≤ 3km≤ 5km

T ri p s ( % )

3 Prudence is called for when making comparisons between the West European cities from Table 1, which have, in most cases, more than 500 000 inhabitants, while the big cities in this study (Antwerp, Ghent and Bruges) have a population between 100 000 and 500 000. 4 In exception of train travel, which can easily cover distances longer than 5km.5 It has to be noted that people do not always travel to the closest possible facility. The study of Boussauw et al. (2011), conducted in Flanders, states that although rural residents travel longer distances, the closest facility is chosen more often.

Figure 3. Percentage of trips within the range of 1, 3 and 5 km within different types of residential municipality.

Figure 2 and 3 indicate that the built environment plays an important role on travel behaviour. They seem to confirm that a high density and a high diversity in urbanised areas results in shorter distances and less car use.6

5. Restricting urban sprawl and car use

Section 4 has indicated that the region of Flanders is a good example of how transportation improvements have shaped the land use pattern and how this built environment nowadays affects trip length and travel mode choice. All the conditions to stimulate long-distance travel and urban sprawl (i.e., transportation improvements, cheap public transportation and a lack of spatial planning regulations) have been present over the last two centuries, encouraging even more long-distance (car) travel at present. In order to restrict urban sprawl and car use in Flanders (and other regions with a similar land use pattern and travel behaviour), three conditions need to be fulfilled: (i) an active spatial planning policy; (ii) a strong cooperation between mobility policy and spatial planning; and (iii) an increase of travel costs. In the following three sections we will discuss these elements.

5.1 Towards a more ‘active’ spatial planning policy

The ‘Spatial Structure Plan for Flanders’, the present structure plan that gives a vision of the desired future land use of Flanders, tries to restrict further urban sprawl by limiting the amount of additional dwellings permitted to build in countryside municipalities to maximum 40%; while this plan strives for at least 60% of additional dwellings in urban areas (Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, 1997). However, this 60/40 relation almost equals the present distribution of Flemings in urban versus rural municipalities (i.e., 58.4/41.6) (http://www.statbel.fgov.be; Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, 2011). The execution of this regulation will consequently not result in a reduction of urban sprawl, but only to a status quo of the present, undesired situation. Besides, the tools provided to achieve this goal are rather weak: the promotion of residential development is done by designating additional construction land for housing in urban municipalities, but there is no tool to slow down residential development in rural municipalities (e.g. by suppressing yet undeveloped construction land and converting it into protected open space) (Boussauw et al., 2013). An increase in the relation between additional dwellings in urban/rural municipalities is necessary in order to cluster activities in urban environments and diminish urban sprawl. According to Weitz and Moore (1998), compact development implies that at least 75% of new housing should be built within urban areas.

Transferable Development Rights (TDR), a spatial planning tool originated from North America, giving the opportunity to transfer development rights from an area where development is undesired (e.g., countryside) to an area where development is more feasible (e.g., urban environments), could be a very interesting tool to slow down the undesired residential development in rural areas (Johnston & Madison, 1997; Levinson, 1997; McConnell et al., 2006; Mills, 1980; Panayotou, 1994; Kaplowitz et

6 It has to be noted, however, that attitudes and lifestyles were not taken into account in this analysis. Recent studies have indicated that these ‘soft variables’ also play an important role in travel mode choice (For example, Van Acker et al., 2011).

al., 2008). TDR could give solace for Flemish prospective residential areas in rural municipalities which are not built-up due to an overestimation of the population growth in the nineteen sixties and seventies. A compensation for not building on these areas, financially or physically (e.g., by giving the opportunity to build upon land in urban environments), can prevent a further damage of the countryside. These prospective residential areas, which are not built-up yet, can be converted into areas with other destinations (e.g., nature), with the help of spatial implementation plans (‘Ruimtelijke Uitvoeringsplannen’ in Dutch, or RUPs). More people living in urban environments and restricting urban sprawl is not only beneficial for a more sustainable travel behaviour (reducing greenhouse gas emissions and congestion due to shorter distances and a higher use of car alternatives (Ewing et al., 2008; Gonzalez, 2005)), but also for a higher ecological sustainability (Alberti & Marzluff, 2004; Ewing, 1997), and a better public health (Booth et al., 2005; Ewing et al., 2003; Lopez, 2004). Furthermore, recent studies have indicated that walking and cycling - typical urban ways of travelling - result in higher travel satisfaction which in turn can result in higher levels of well-being (Abou-Zeid, 2009; Olsson et al., 2013).

5.2 A stronger cooperation between mobility policy and spatial planning

Mobility policies in Flanders have mainly focussed on accessibility and getting every place accessible for every person; elements which are still present in the current mobility plan of Flanders (‘Mobility Plan Flanders’ / Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, 2003). Since Flanders is such a dispersed region, this has brought along a large amount of infrastructure7 and a widespread public transportation network. The decree ‘basic mobility’ (approved by the Flemish parliament in 2001), for instance, states that every Fleming has the right on a minimum supply of public transportation. This decree aims at providing a stopping place for public transportation within 750 m of the dwelling of 90% of the Flemings, so also for most people living in rural municipalities, encouraging long-distance travel. Besides, offering public transportation in such a dispersed region is not (cost-) effective since only a limited amount of people reside in proximity of a public transportation line. Not surprisingly, public transportation use in Flanders is relatively low, even in big cities (see Figure 2). It seems that a self-strengthening effect is at play; more urban sprawl leads to a more widespread infrastructure network and - in Flanders - to a fine-grained public transportation network, which in turn results in more suburbanisation. In order to stop this undesired evolution, the supply of infrastructure and public transportation can no longer follow the demand of transportation; the supply has to steer the demand. Infrastructure and high-quality public transportation should be clustered in and between big and regional cities. This will result in areas being less accessible (especially the countryside) than others (especially urban areas) and therefore can have a reduced attraction as residential location.

In this respect, Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) seems to be an interesting option. The implementation of TOD, where high-density and high-diversity neighbourhoods are being realized around existing or new public transit stops offering frequent and high-quality public transportation (Cervero, 1998, 2004; Curtis et al., 2009; Dittmar & Ohland, 2004; Knowles, 2012; Loo et al., 2010), can help to restrict further urban sprawl and stimulate the use of sustainable travel modes. Offering additional dwellings in urban areas with a good accessibility (partly because of high-quality public

7 At present (January 2013), Flanders has a very dense railway network (116 km per 1000 km2) and road network (512 km per 1000 km2) (http://www.statbel.fgov.be/).

transportation) can convince people to relocate to these neighbourhoods and restrict further urban sprawl. According to Lund (2006) - surveying residents in TOD’s in the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego and Los Angeles - access to public transportation is one of the three most important reasons (together with the type and cost of housing) to reside in a TOD, indicating the potential of TOD’s to attract people from low-density neighbourhoods. People living in these neighbourhoods will be able to travel easily with car alternatives. Not only is there high-quality public transportation nearby (increasing public transportation ridership), the high density and diversity result in shorter trips, stimulating walking and cycling. A large amount of people living nearby limited public transportation lines will also positively affect the cost-effectiveness of public transportation. Clustering infrastructure and public transportation in and between urban areas implies a strong collaboration between spatial planning and mobility policy, which is currently lacking in Flanders; the existing spatial structure plan (‘Spatial Structure Plan for Flanders’ / Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, 1997, 2011) - attempting to restrict further urban sprawl - and the existing mobility plan (‘Mobility Plan Flanders’ / Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, 2003) - mainly focusing on accessibility - barely refer to each other (De Vos et al., 2012b).

Interesting examples of TOD’s in comparable settings as the Flanders Region (i.e., regions with regional cities (< 500 000 inhabitants)) can be found, for example, in Germany and France (Bahn.ville project) and Switzerland (Railcity programme). The Bahn.ville project (applied, among others, in cities as Strasbourg, Bonn and Nantes) tries to integrate land use planning and transportation planning in order to increase public transportation ridership by offering high-quality rail-based transportation with high frequency (http://www.bahn-ville.net). The latter programme (applied in cities like Zürich, Bern and Luzern) focusses more on the nodes in the public transportation network. By offering leisure, shopping and other services at transportation nodes all year round from the morning until late in the evening, a more positive atmosphere has been created, increasing the attractiveness of public transportation use (and walking and cycling as pre- and post-travel) (Gebauer et al., 2010).

5.3 Increasing travel costs

As indicated in Section 2, existing literature suggests that travel costs have a limited impact on residential location decisions. However, in the case of higher travel costs, transportation can become a more important factor in people’s decision on where to locate or on the decision whether or not to relocate. The most argued way to increase travel costs is road pricing, a scheme to internalise external costs (e.g., congestion, air pollution). Some studies have analysed the link between road pricing and residential location choice and state that road pricing might not only lead to short-term changes (e.g., changing travel modes or destinations), but also to long-term changes, such as residential or work locations. Most of them state that road pricing will lead to high densities, mixed uses and compact development patterns. However, most of these studies are conceptual, analytical or theoretical and do not provide empirical evidence. Tillema et al. (2010a, 2010b), on the other hand, conducting a stated preference experiment among 564 car-commuting respondents in The Netherlands, measured the likelihood that people would relocate or change their jobs if a road pricing measure were to be implemented. About 5 % of the respondents indicated a reasonably high probability of relocating and about 13.5 % indicated a high probability of changing jobs (in favour of a more nearby job location). Arentze and Timmermans (2007), using a stated adaptation experiment among 395 car and train users in The Netherlands, found rather opposite results. They state that 2.1

% of the respondents would change their work location and 9.8% would change the home location. However, the studies of Tillema and colleagues and Arentze and Timmermans seem to agree on the fact that a modest share of respondents is willing to change their residential location choice. According to Tillema et al. (2010a), respondents who already have a reasonable high probability of relocating (e.g., due to low neighbourhood satisfaction) are especially likely to relocate as a result of road pricing. It seems that, in order to make people relocate to dense, urban neighbourhoods, people need to be attracted by these areas. The interventions discussed in section 4.1 and 4.2 (i.e., TOD and TDR) can help to increase the attractiveness of urban areas. The implementation of road pricing can then trigger an actual relocation.8 The revenues of road pricing can be invested in the further development of high-quality public transportation in urban areas and spatial planning policies resulting in clustering activities. Not all types of road pricing, however, seem suited to realise a denser and more concentrated urban spatial structure. Cordon charges for entering city centres, for instance, might have inverse effects since households might decide to move out of the city to locations where they can travel at a lower cost (Banister, 2002). Therefore it seems best to implement a kilometre charge on motorways and interurban roads. However, due to complex implementation, road pricing systems up till now tend to be limited to cordon charges around city centres (e.g., London, Stockholm) (Bradley & Kenworthy, 2012). In 2014, a pilot project on road pricing will start in Flanders (in association with the regions Brussels and Wallonia), implementing a kilometre charge on approximately 1000 car users (http://www.viapass.be).

An alternative for road pricing has recently been developed by Bradley and Kenworthy (2012), namely congestion offsets. This approach treats roadways as commons, whereby every person has the right on an even share of using these roads. Individuals who occupy a more than proportional share of the roadway (e.g., (single occupancy) car users) will be fined, and will consequently experience increased travel costs. This money will subsequently be transferred to individuals who occupy a less than proportional share of the road (e.g., bus users), for instance by increasing the quality of public transportation without increasing the price of tickets. Although this will not necessarily result in shorter trips, it will most probably result in a modal shift in favour of public transportation. Furthermore, more people will prefer to live in close proximity of public transportation (i.e., in urban areas) due to the increased cost of car use.

Another method to increase travel costs of motorised travel is by increasing fuel taxation. Although no studies have emphasised on long-term effects of increased fuel taxation, the effects will probably be the same as implementing kilometre charge. An indirect way of increasing travel costs is by increasing taxes on company cars. Around 50% of all the new passengers cars sold in Belgium are company cars and company cars now account for more than 10% of the Belgian car fleet (De Witte & Macharis, 2010). Increasing taxes will make it less interesting for employers to incorporate company cars in the wage packet of employees. Since the cost of company car use is constant, regardless of its use (Shiftan et al., 2012), a decrease in the amount of company cars can make people more conscious of their travel behaviour (i.e., the choice of destination, mode choice, job location and residential location).

6. Value of travel

8 It has to be noted however, that the rise of dual-earner households might bring along difficulties in finding residential locations with low travel costs since work locations might be located at distant places.

Previous section has indicated that transportation policies can be used as a tool to adjust land use patterns, just as spatial planning is often used as a tool to adjust travel behaviour. Increasing travel costs can lead to high densities, mixed uses and compact development patterns, especially when an active spatial planning (providing additional dwellings in urban areas) cooperates closely with mobility policies (such as in the case of TOD) resulting in appealing urban neighbourhoods to reside in. In fact, the three interventions discussed in Section 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 can help to (i) increase the value people give to travel (so people will be more conscious when choosing a travel mode, a destination, a job location or a residential location) and (ii) increase the attraction of urban neighbourhoods.

Increasing travel costs might change the way in which people perceive travel. Since travel is mostly a derived demand (people travel in order to participate in activities at different places) and travel costs are rather low at present, people do not give an important value to travel, resulting in unconscious travel behaviour. Increasing travel costs might increase the value that people give to travel. Indications exist that there are shifting perceptions of travel as a valuable good. According to Jain and Lyons (2008), travel time can be perceived and experienced positively in three ways. First of all, travel time gives the opportunity to mentally prepare for the activity ahead (transition time). Second, travel time can be regarded as the time away from the obligations of work and home, when people are really free (time out). Third, travel time gives the opportunity to conduct work, making contact with people or being entertained by using mobile phones and laptops (equipped time). Furthermore, the demand for travel is not always as derived as commonly accepted. Trips are not always being made in order to participate in certain activities which are located at different places. Positive feelings during travel (whether or not due to certain satisfying activities during travel) can result in travel time that is perceived positively, which can result in trips where travel in itself is more important than reaching the destination, or there is no destination at all (e.g., recreational jogging) (De Vos et al., 2013a). Travel can become the main activity itself (Mokhtarian & Salomon, 2001; Ory & Mokhtarian, 2005; Redmond & Mokhtarian, 2001). Travel being perceived more valuable can make people more conscious when choosing a travel mode, a destination, a job location or a residential location, resulting in shorter trips and less car use. Increasing travel costs, which especially affects people living in remote neighbourhoods (since they, on average, travel longer distances) and TOD’s offering high-quality public transportation in urban neighbourhoods, can help to reinforce an evolution of suburban residential preferences toward urban residential preferences. Although most people (both in Europe and North-America) still prefer to live in low-density environments, people preferring (high-density and mixed-use) urban neighbourhoods are substantial (Bootsma, 1998; Brower, 1996; Brun & Fagnini, 1994; McDowell, 1997; Schwanen and Mokhtarian, 2007; Van Ham and Feijten, 2008) and growing (Handy et al., 2008; Myers and Gearin, 2001); people living in low-density suburbs are no more likely to express greater satisfaction with their neighbourhood than those living in the city (Adams, 1992; Farrell et al., 2004; Lovejoy et al., 2010). The land use pattern and mobility preferences can partly explain this evolution. Talen (2001) in the US and De Vos et al. (2013b) in Europe state that urban sprawl at an advanced stage can lead to a reduced neighbourhood satisfaction of suburbanites and a resulting increased preference for urban neighbourhoods. Lund (2006) and Schwanen and Mokhtarian (2007) indicate that travel mode preferences are an important aspect for choosing urban residential neighbourhoods; people who value the ability to travel by modes other than the car are appealed by these locations. TOD’s and a public transportation system which is clustered (instead of widespread)

can realise a big difference in the supply of public transportation between rural and urban municipalities convincing people who prefer to travel with car alternatives to relocate to urban neighbourhoods. Increasing travel costs further strengthens the attraction of urban areas, since travel costs are lowest in these places. Transferable Development Rights and other spatial planning tools (also including TOD’s) can realise additional dwellings in urban environments, making it easier for people to relocate over there.

Increasing travel costs can also result in some negative consequences. People with high incomes might become more mobile than low-income groups, which can result in social exclusion of the latter group, especially in remote neighbourhoods. Congestion offsets (discussed in section 5.3) could be an interesting tool to prevent an increase of social exclusion. The money transfer from car users (who will experience increased travel costs since they occupy a large share of the road) to public transportation users, who occupy a less than proportional share of the road (or by expansion all the area being occupied with transportation infrastructure), can make it possible to offer high-quality public transportation (within and between urban areas) without increasing the price, and as a consequence without increasing social exclusion of low-income groups. The increased attractiveness of urban neighbourhoods might also have the undesired effect of increasing urban land prices, whereby low-income groups might not be able to purchase a dwelling in an urban neighbourhood. Therefore it is important that a large amount of additional dwellings is provided in urban areas (preferable in TOD’s), which can decrease dwelling prices and make it easier for suburbanites or rural residents to actually relocate to an urban neighbourhood.

7. Conclusion

An extensive amount of literature has indicated that the built environment affects travel behaviour. People living in urban neighbourhoods with a high density and diversity travel less by car than people residing in low-density suburbs. Therefore, urban planners have tried to create compact, mixed-use environments in order to limit car use. The influence of travel behaviour on the built environment however, has been analysed much less. The land use pattern of most western countries has been shaped by transportation improvements, especially of the car. Cheap, comfortable and fast transportation has resulted in an overconsumption of travel and consequently also in urban sprawl, which in turn further stimulates long-distance car trips.

In this paper we have analysed the link between travel behaviour and land use in the urbanized region of Flanders, Belgium. This region has proved to be a good example of how transportation improvements have shaped the land and how this land use pattern nowadays affects trip length and travel mode choice. All the conditions to stimulate long-distance travel and urban sprawl (i.e., an ‘anti-urban’ policy combined with transportation improvements, cheap public transportation and a lack of spatial planning regulations) have been present over the last two centuries, encouraging even more long-distance (car) travel at present. In order to bend over this undesired evolution (in Flanders or other comparable regions), transportation costs, especially for car users, need to increase (e.g., by road pricing or congestion offsets). Together with TOD’s (creating compact and mixed-use neighbourhoods with good access to high-quality public transportation) and active spatial planning regulations (discouraging further developments in rural municipalities (e.g., by means of TRD’s)) increasing travel costs can help to make urban neighbourhoods more appealing to live in. Travel

costs will play a more important role in route choice and travel mode choice, but also in long-term decisions such as the job location and the residential location choice. Locations with low transportation costs (i.e., urban neighbourhoods) will become more appealing to live in, resulting in a more sustainable land use pattern (less people living in rural municipalities) and a more sustainable travel behaviour (people will travel shorter distances and the use of car alternatives will increase). In sum, spatial planning regulations (discouraging further urban sprawl) and travel regulations (discouraging long-distance travel (by car)) need to operate simultaneously in order to restrict urban sprawl and car use. Travel regulations can make urban neighbourhoods more appealing, urban planning regulations can make it easier for people who want to relocate to urban neighbourhoods to effectively do so (e.g., by creating additional dwellings).

This paper is also embedded in the frequently researched debate whether physical factors (built environment), economic factors (land prices and transportation costs) or behavioural factors (attitudes and lifestyle) affect travel behaviour most (see for example Ewing & Cervero, 2010). Although behavioural factors were not taken into account in this study, the results shown in this article suggest a strong influence of the built environment on trip length and travel mode choice. The influence of economic factors on travel behaviour seem - although not directly measured - rather limited. An increase in travel costs, as suggested in this study, could however increase the importance of economic factors on travel behaviour.

References

Abou-Zeid, M., 2009. Measuring and modeling activities and travel well-being (doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Adams, R.E., 1992. Is happiness a home in the suburbs? The influence of urban versus suburban neighborhoods on psychological health. Journal of Community Psychology 20 (4), 353-371.

Alberti, M., Marzluff, J.M., 2004. Ecological resilience in urban ecosystems: Linking urban patterns to human and ecological functions. Urban Ecosystems 7 (3), 241-265.

Albrechts L., 1999. Planners as catalysts and initiators of change. The new structure plan for Flanders. European Planning Studies 7 (5), 587-603.

Albrechts, L., Healey, P., Kunzmann, K.R., 2003. Strategic spatial planning and regional governance in Europe, Journal of the American Planning Association 69 (2), 113-129.

Allaert, G., 2008. Ruimte en planning. Van planningstheorie tot de Vlaamse planningspraktijk (in Dutch). Gent: Academia Press.

Alonso, W., 1964. Location and Land Use: Toward a General Theory of Land Rent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Arbury, J., 2005. From Urban Sprawl to Compact City – An analysis of urban growth management in Auckland. thesis, University of Auckland, portal.jarbury.net/thesis.pdf.

Arentze, T., Timmermans, H., 2007. Congestion pricing scenarios and change of job or residential location: results of a stated adaptation experiment. Journal of Transport Geography 15 (1), 56-61.

Banister, D., 2002. The integration of road pricing with land use planning. Paper presented at the 2nd

seminar of the IMPRINT-EUROPE Thematic Network: Implementing Reform on Transport Pricing: Identifying Mode-Specific Issues, 14–15 May, Brussels.

Blauwens, G., De Baere, P., Van de Voorde, E., 2008. Transport Economics. Third Edition. Antwerpen: Uitgeverij De Boeck.

Booth, K.M., Pinkston, M.M., Poston, W.S.C., 2005. Obesity and the built environment. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 105 (5), 110-117.

Bootsma, H.G., 1998. The myth of reurbanization: location dynamics of households in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.

Boussauw, K., Van Acker, V., Witlox, F., 2011. Excess travel in non-professional trips: why look for it miles away? Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 103 (1), 20-38.

Boussauw, K., Allaert., G., Witlox, F., 2013. Colouring inside what lines? Interference of the urban growth boundary and the political-administrative border of Brussels. European Planning Studies. DOI:10.1080/09654313.2012.722952

Boussauw, K., Witlox, F., 2010. Linking expected mobility production to sustainable residential location planning: some evidence from Flanders. Journal of Transport Geography 19 (4), 936-942.

Bradley, M., Kenworthy, F., 2012. Congestion offsets: transforming cities by letting buses compete. World Transport Policy and Practice 18 (4), 46-67.

Brower, S., 1996. Good Neighbourhoods: A Study of In-town and Suburban Residential Environments. New York: Praeger.

Brueckner, J.K., 2000. Urban sprawl: diagnosis and remedies. International Regional Science Review 23 (2), 160-171.

Brun, J., Fagnani, J., 1994. Lifestyles and locational choices-trade-offs and compromises: a case-study of middle-class couples living in the Ile-de-France region. Urban Studies 31 (6), 921-934.

Button, K., 2010. Transport Economics. Third edition. Aldershot: Edward Elgar Publishing Company.

Cervero, R., 2004. Transit-oriented development in the United States: experiences, challenges and prospects, TCRP Report 102.

Cervero, R., 1998. The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Cervero, R., 1996. Traditional neighborhoods and commuting in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation 23 (4), 373-394.

Cervero, R., Kockelman, K., 1997. Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity and design. Transportation Research Part D 2 (3), 199-219.

Cervero, R., Radisch, C., 1996. Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighborhoods. Transport Policy 3 (3), 127-141.

Clark, W.A.V., Huang, Y., Withers, S., 2003. Does commuting distance matter? Commuting tolerance and residential change. Regional Science and Urban Economics 33 (2), 199-221.

Curtis, C., Renne, J.L., Bertolini, L., 2009. Transit Oriented Development: making it happen. Farnham, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.

Davoudi, S., Stead, D., 2002. Urban-rural relationship: an introduction and brief history. Built Environment 28 (4), 269-277.

De Decker, P., 2011 Understanding housing sprawl: the case of Flanders, Belgium. Environment and Planning A 43 (7), 1634-1654.

De Geyter X., Bekaert, G., de Boeck L., Patteeuw V., 2002. After-sprawl. Research on the Contemporary City. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers; Antwerp: deSingel International Arts Centre.

De Vos, J., Derudder, B., Van Acker, V., Witlox, F., 2012a. Reducing car use: changing attitudes or relocating? The influence of residential dissonance on travel behavior. Journal of Transport Geography 22, 1-9.

De Vos, J., Schwanen, T., Van Acker, V., Witlox, F., 2013a. Travel and subjective well-being: a focus on findings, methods and future research needs. Transport Reviews 33 (4), 421-442.

De Vos, J., Van Acker, V., Witlox, F., 2012b. Flanders vs. The Netherlands. The influence of spatial planning on mobility (in Dutch). Ruimte & Maatschappij 3 (4), 1-27.

De Vos, J., Van Acker, V., Witlox, F., 2013b. Urban sprawl: neighborhood dissatisfaction and urban preferences. Some evidence from Flanders. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment (submitted for publication).

De Witte, A., Macharis, C. 2010. Company cars and mobility behaviour: 3 types of company car users. Paper presented at the 12th World Conference on Transport Research (WCTR), July 11-15, 2010, Lisbon.

Dieleman, F.M., Dijst, M., Spit, T., 1999. Planning the compact city: the Randstad Holland experience. European Planning Studies 7 (5), 605-621.

Dittmar, H., Belzer, D., Autler, G., 2004. An introduction into transit-oriented development. In: Dittmar, H., Ohland, G. (Eds.) The new transit town: best practices in transit-oriented development. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Dittmar, H., Ohland, G., 2004. The new transit town: best practices in transit-oriented development. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

European Commission, 2001. White paper - European transport policy for 2010: time to decide. Office for official publications of the European Communities. Brussels: European Commission.

European Commission, 2011. White paper on transport - Roadmap to a single European transport area - Towards a competitive and resource-efficient transport system. Publications office of the European Union. Brussels: European Commissions.

Ewing, R., 1997. Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? Journal of the American Planning Association 63 (1), 107-126.

Ewing, R., Bartholomew, K., Winkelman, S., Walters, J., Chen, D., 2008. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.

Ewing, R., Cervero, R., 2010. Travel and the built environment. A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association 76 (3), 265-294.

Ewing, R., Schmid, T., Killingsworth, R., Zlot, A., Raudenbusch, S., 2003. Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity. American Journal of Health Promotion 18 (1), 47-57.

Farrell, S.J., Aubry, T., Coulombe, D., 2004. Neighborhoods and neighbors: do they contribute to personal well-being? Journal of Community Psychology 32 (1), 9-25.

Frank, L.D., Pivo, G., 1994. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transportation Research Record 1466, 44-52.

Friedman, B., Gordon, S.P., Peers, J.B., 1994. Effect of neotraditional neighborhood design on travel characteristics. Transportation Research Record 1466, 63-70.

Gebauer, H., Johnson, M., Enquist, B., 2010. Value co-creation as a determinant of success in public transport services: a study of the Swiss Federal Railway operator (SBB). Managing Service Quality 20 (6), 511-530.

Gillham, O., 2002. The limitless city. A primer on the urban sprawl debate. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Giuliano, G., 1989. New directions for understanding transportation and land use. Environment and Planning A 21 (2), 145-159.

Glaeser, E., Kahn, M., 2004. Sprawl and Urban Growth. In: Henderson, J.V., Thisse, J.F. (Eds.) Handbook of Urban and Regional Economics, Vol. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Glaeser, E., Kohlhase, J.E., 2004. Cities, regions and the decline of transports costs. Regional Science 83 (1), 197-228.

Gonzalez, G.A., 2005. Urban sprawl, global warming and the limits of ecological modernisation. Environmental Politics 14 (3), 344-362.

Handy, S., Sallis, J.F., Weber, D., Maibach, E., Hollander, M., 2008. Is support for traditionally designed communities growing? Evidence from two national surveys. Journal of the American Planning Association 74 (2), 209-221.

Howard, E., 1902. Garden cities of tomorrow, 2nd edition. London: Sonnenschein & co.

Jain, J., Lyons, G., 2008. The gift of travel time. Journal of Transport Geography 16 (2), 81-89.

Johnston, R.A., Madison, M.E., 1997. From land marks to landscapes: a review of current practices in the transfer of development rights. Journal of American Planning Association 63 (3), 365-378.

Kaplowitz, M.D., Machemer, P., Pruetz, R., 2008. Planners’ experiences in managing growth using transferable development rights (TDR) in the United States. Land Use Policy 25 (3), 378-387.

Kenworthy, J.R., 2006. The eco-city: ten key transport and planning dimensions for sustainable city development. Environment and Urbanization 18 (1), 67-85.

Kenworthy, J.R., Laube, F., 1999. Patterns of automobile dependence in cities: an international overview of key physical and economic dimensions with some implications for urban policy. Transportation Research Part A 33 (7-8), 691-723.

Kenworthy, J.R., Laube, F., 2001. The millennium cities database for sustainable transport. International Association of Public Transport (UITP), Brussels.Kesteloot, C., De Maesschalk, F., 2001. Anti-urbanism in Flanders: the political and social consequences of a spatial class struggle strategy. Belgeo 1-2, 41-62.

Knowles, R.D., 2012. Transit Oriented Development in Copenhagen, Denmark: from the Finger Plan to Ørestad. Journal of Transport Geography 22, 251-261.

Levinson, A., 1997. Why oppose TDRs? Transferable development rights can increase overall development. Regional Science and Urban Economics 27 (3), 283-296.

Loo, B.P.Y., Chen, C., Chan, E.T.H. 2010. Rail-based transit-oriented development: lessons from New York City and Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (3), 202-212.

Lopez, R., 2004. Urban sprawl and risk for being overweight or obese. American Journal of Public Health 94 (9), 1574-1579.

Lovejoy, K., Handy, S., Mokhtarian, P., 2010. Neighborhood satisfaction in suburban versus traditional environments: an evaluation of contributing characteristics in eight California neighborhoods. Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (1), 37-48.

Lund, H., 2006. Reasons for Living in a Transit-Oriented Development, and Associated Transit Use. Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (3), 357-66.

McConnell, V., Walls, M., Kopits, E., 2006. Zoning, TDRs and the density of development. Journal of Urban Economics 59 (3), 440-457.

McDowell, L., 1997. The new service class: housing, consumption, and lifestyle among London bankers in the 1990s. Environment and Planning A 29 (11), 2061-2078.

Metz, D., 2008. The myth of travel time saving. Transport Reviews 28 (3), 321-336.

Mills, D.E., 1980. Transferable development rights markets. Journal of Urban Economics 7 (1), 63-74.

Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, 1997. Ruimtelijk Structuurplan Vlaanderen (in Dutch). Brussel: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap.

Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, 2003. Mobiliteitsplan Vlaanderen. Naar een duurzame mobiliteit in Vlaanderen. Beleidsvoornemens (in Dutch). Brussel: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap.

Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, 2011. Ruimtelijk Structuurplan Vlaanderen (Coordinated version 2011/ in Dutch). Brussel: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap.

Mokhtarian, P.L., Salomon, I., 2001. How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations. Transportation Research Part A 35 (8), 695-719.

Molin, E.,Timmermans, H. (2003) Accessibility considerations in residential choice decisions: accumulated evidence from the Benelux. Paper presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

Myers, D., Gearin, E., 2001. Current preferences and future demand for denser residential environments. Housing Policy Debate 12 (4), 633-659.

Newman, P., 1992. The Compact City: an Australian perspective. Built Environment 18 (4), 285-300.

Newman, P., Kenworthy, J.R., 1996. The land use-transport connection: An overview. Land Use Policy 13 (1), 1-22.

O’Farrell, P.N., Markham, J., 1975. Commuting costs and residential location. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 66 (2), 66-74.

Olsson, L.E., Gärling, T., Ettema, D., Friman, M., & Fujii, S., 2013. Happiness and satisfaction with work commute. Social Indicators Research 111 (1), 255-263.

Ory, D.T., Mokhtarian, P.L., 2005. When is getting there half the fun? Modeling the liking for travel. Transportation Research Part A 39 (2-3), 97-123.

Panayotou, T., 1994. Conservation of biodiversity and economic development: the concept of transferable development rights. Environmental and Resource Economics 4 (1), 91-110.

Redmond, L.S., Mokhtarian, P.L., 2001. The positive utility of the commute: modeling ideal commute time and relative desired commute amount. Transportation 28 (2), 179-205.

Rouwendal, J., Meijer, E., 2001. Preferences for housing, jobs, and commuting: a mixed logit analysis, Journal of Regional Science 41 (3), 475-505.

Schafer, A., Victor, D.G., 2000. The future mobility of the world population. Transportation Research Part A 34 (3), 171-205.

Scheers, J., 2006. Spatial planning in the economic core of Europe: The transition from land use planning to spatial structure planning in Flanders. In: Adams, N., Alden, J., Harris, N. (Eds) Regional Development and Spatial Planning in an Enlarged European Union. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 65-86.

Schwanen, T., 2002. Urban form and commuting behaviour: a cross-European perspective. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 93 (3), 336-343.

Schwanen, T., Dijst, M., Dieleman, F.M., 2004. Policies for urban form and their impact on travel: the Netherlands experience. Urban Studies 41 (3), 579-603.

Schwanen, T., Mokhtarian, P.L., 2007. Attitudes toward travel and land use and choice of residential neighborhood type: evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Housing Policy Debate 18 (1), 171-207.

Schwanen, T., Mokhtarian, P.L., 2005. What affects commute mode choice. Neighbourhood physical structure or preferences toward neighborhoods? Journal of Transport Geography 13 (1), 83-99.

Shiftan, Y., Albert., G., Keinan, T., 2012. The impact of company-car taxation policy on travel behaviour. Transport Policy 19 (1), 139-146.

Talen, E., 2001. Traditional urbanism meets residential affluence. An analysis of the variability of suburban preference. Journal of the American Planning Association 67 (2), 199-216.

Tillema, T., van Wee, B., Ettema, D., 2010a. Road pricing and relocation decisions of Dutch households. Urban Studies 47 (14), 3013-3033.

Tillema, T., van Wee, B., Ettema, D., 2010b. The influence of (toll-related) travel costs in residential location decisions of households: A stated choice approach. Transportation Research Part A 44 (10), 785-796.

Van Acker, V., Mokhtarian, P.L., Witlox, F., 2011. Going soft: on how subjective variables explain modal choices for leisure travel. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 11 (2), 115-146.

Van Acker, V., Witlox, F., 2010. Car ownership as a mediating variable in car travel behaviour research using a structural equation modelling approach to identify its dual relationship. Journal of Transport Geography 18 (1), 65-74.

van Ommeren, J., Rietveld, P., Nijkamp, P., 1999. Job moving, residential moving, and commuting: a search perspective. Journal of Urban Economics 46 (2), 230-253.

Vanoutrive, T., Van De Vijver, E., Van Malderen, L., Jourquin, B., Thomas, I., Verhetsel, A., Witlox, F., 2012. What determines carpooling to workplaces in Belgium: location, organisation, or promotion? Journal of Transport Geography 22, 77-86.

Verhetsel, A., Thomas, I., Beelen, M., 2010. Commuting in Belgian metropolitan areas. The power of the Alonso-Muth model. Journal of Transport and Land Use 2 (3/4), 109-131.

Weisbrod, G., Ben-Akiva, M., Lerman, S., 1980. Tradeoffs in residential location decisions: transportation versus other factors. Transportation Policy and Decision-Making 1 (1), 13-26.

Weitz, J., Moore, T., 1998. Development inside urban growth boundaries: Oregon's empirical evidence of contiguous urban form. Journal of the American Planning Association 64 (4), 424-440.

Wingo, L. 1961. Transportation and Urban Land. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Witlox, F. 2007. Evaluating the reliability of reported distance data in urban travel behaviour analysis. Journal of Transport Geography 15 (3), 172-183.