Better Accessibility for Urbanes Land

Decentralised territories are underrepresented in urban discourses, although they often include ‘hidden stars’ of regional socio-economic development, high levels of innovation and a full integration in the global economy. However, their fundamental challenge there is to achieve better accessibility. To enable it, the movement function of transport needs to be brought together with the location of opportunities, as our author states.

Philipp Rode

Like many of my generation I grew up with a Märklin model railway, which besides its moving parts allowed us to play with an imagined, self-built landscape at the manageable scale of 1:87. One of the most creative imaginations that many of these train sets inspired was the juxtaposition of urban and rural elements. The electric trains meant that central urban railway stations and their surrounding urbanity were situated within mere seconds of villages, steep mountains and valleys (which were key to having as many tunnels and bridges as possible). It appears that many of these train sets effortlessly achieved Kurt Tucholsky’s ideal of having “the Baltic Sea in the front, the Friedrichstrasse in the back”. In reality of course, the high frequency of train service, a beautifully designed rail terminal and its surrounding urban amenities are impossible to achieve with the few citizens who even the most ambitious and extensive train sets imply. While this is an obvious point, it is also one which a renewed framing of Urbanes Land invites us to highlight, particularly at a time of great disruption due to a combination of the COVID-19 pandemic and the global ecological emergency. Reconsidering the role of Urbanes Land, here broadly defined as decentralised territories with clear hierarchies of smaller cities, towns and villages, as part of global urbanisation and urban change, could not be more timely. Underrepresented in urban discourses, these decentralised regions include ‘hidden stars’ of regional socio-economic development, high levels of innovation and a full integration in the global economy that conventional spatial economics struggles to explain. These areas potentially offer a balance to what technologist Ayesha Khanna recently called “the elitism of location” in reference to super-star global cities. Most importantly, these territories also offer a promise of rebalancing and regionalising our relationship with nature.Rather than exploring how broader notions of urbanity and cosmopolitanism can, or cannot, be accommodated in settlement structures other than larger cities, I focus on one often-mentioned fundamental challenge: achieving better accessibility for urban areas beyond core cities. My point of departure is a recognition of transport and mobility systems being in crisis, created above all by ignoring the fact that accessibility is more than the facilitation of movement. With this premise, I reconsider transport as a challenge to accessibility, and then speculate about an emerging agenda for better accessibility for Urbanes Land.

From transport in crisis to embracing urban access

As much as the current pandemic is having a great impact on our lives, any reflection on global crises for the foreseeable future will have to first consider the climate emergency. As the UK Government’s former chief scientific advisor David King put it in 2019, “The next decade will determine the future of humans on this planet for 10,000 years”. This is particularly the case for the transport sector, which is increasingly considered the ‘make or break’ sector for the maintenance of a safe planet. Up to the point of pandemic-related emergency restrictions put in place by governments across the world, transport-related emissions were not only stubbornly high – with a share of 23 per cent of the total emissions globally – but in several developed countries had started to rise again. Emissions are growing more rapidly in the transport sector than in any other, and are projected to almost double by 2050 under a business-as-usual scenario (i). In most US cities, for example, carbon emissions from road transport have increased since 2014, mainly as a result of the increasing popularity of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and other heavier, over-powered, carbon-intensive cars (ii). Adding to this already overwhelming crisis of transport and mobility are its many other negative externalities, which are broadly related to the vast transport-intensity of our economies and the car-oriented logic of overcoming spatial friction. Globally, 1.35 million deaths are recorded per year due to traffic accidents – the leading cause of death for children and young adults aged 5 to 29 years (iii). To a considerable extent, transport is responsible for about 4.2 million premature deaths annually due to air pollution (iv). In addition, physical inactivity due to motorised transport is causing heart disease at unprecedented levels and the effect of heavy road transport severely compromises the social life of cities, as well as community cohesion (v). From an urban and spatial perspective, the most significant problem of car-oriented mobility is its consumption of space: Considering average occupancy levels, moving with a privately owned vehicle at 50 km/h, easily requires 160 square metres per person of infrastructure space. As a result, we are heavily underutilising our road infrastructure, which at least in the case of scarce urban land becomes increasingly hard to justify. Even in the wealthiest of countries, only a tiny group of extremely privileged people may have similar levels of living space per person. Rather astonishingly, traditional transport policy has long tolerated such an appropriation of land, including hyper-urban areas that have premium land values. Additionally, this often leads to traffic congestion, further reducing economic opportunities, the quality of life and environmental health. The underutilizing of scarce resources linked to car-centric mobility does not stop here, either. Individual vehicles are unused 96 per cent of the time, wasting even more space. Only a very small amount of the energy used to move cars does in fact contribute to moving a person. Given these multiple crises, reconsidering the purpose of transport and acknowledging the provision of access as its ultimate aim is more important than ever. This brings us to settlement patterns and urban development. A fundamental urban paradigm is a better provision of access to other people, opportunities, goods, services and ideas. In fact, cities are themselves ‘transport solutions’ and this function makes urban development so important for economic development and social progress. As soon as effective urban access also translates to resource and energy efficiencies, cities and urban regions can play a unique role in achieving greater levels of prosperity that are also environmentally sustainable. Furthermore, access to opportunities remains unequally distributed, highlighting how important it is to think about how different groups are supported (or not) in accessing urban opportunities, and how this relates to wider debates about just transitions and sustainable development. To enable accessibility, the movement function of transport needs to be brought together with the location of opportunities. Ultimately, transport and land use must always go hand in hand, but there are real choices linked to the accessibility nexus.

The following extremes can illustrate this: We can aim for car-oriented, transport intense urban regions such as those of Sao Paulo, Mexico City or Los Angeles. While residing in low-rise individual houses, the compromise is one of being connected with each other and, particularly, how equal access is distributed across different income groups. The dispersed, low-density urban peripheries of these cities can in some instances lead to three-hour commutes, reduced access to services and high transport costs. Alternatively, we could aim for the urban density and mixed use of Hong Kong, central Paris or Barcelona. The compromises here are housing costs and, for some, living in apartments rather than individual houses. The benefits are greater efficiencies in access, with many opportunities located within a 15-minute walking distance, and metropolitan labour markets directly accessible with high-frequency metro systems. Beyond the differences in how we live and travel, these diverging accessibility approaches – the first based on intensive travel, the latter based on co-location – imply considerable variations in terms of resource needs and carbon emissions. At similar wealth levels, dispersed Kuwait requires five times more energy per capita compared to Hong Kong as a result of their different urban forms (vi). This is the direct consequence of Hong Kong’s far greater levels of density, mixed use and high capacity public transport systems. Considering the far-reaching and related evidence that has been building up over years on the resource advantages of density and mixed use (vii), the planning and policy agenda of compact and connected urban growth is today widely endorsed by the UN, the EU, and numerous national and city governments (viii). As a result, transport needs are being reframed by policy makers as accessibility requirements for which the movement function is just one among several key components. Above all rank land use and social policy that consider the affordability of transport as well as that of the locations of activities such as housing, work places and many other opportunities. The resulting paradigm for transport policy is often referred to as to as ‘Avoid-Shift-Improve’ (Vermeiden-Verlagern-Verbessern): First, policy should find opportunities to reduce the need to travel; second, it should shift mobility to walking, cycling, shared mobility and public transport; and third, it has to incentivise a radical shift of the remaining and necessary auto-mobility towards electric, smaller and highly energy-efficient vehicles. At today’s crisis point of overcoming the global pandemic alongside an ongoing confrontation with the global climate emergency, the case for breaking with past trends and approaches to urban accessibility has never been stronger. This perspective also aligns with a broader consensus that the COVID-19 recovery should not be a return to ‘business as usual’ and should instead build on changes in mobility behaviour that have occurred since March 2020 and that support a sustainable transport transition – above all a localisation of activities, a marked increase in walking and cycling, alongside a considerable surge in digital connectivity.

Access for Urbanes Land

When relating the multiple transport and mobility crises above to the specific conditions of Urbanes Land, some, such as congestion and air pollution, may be less pronounced. Others, however, and especially the contribution to global heating, the risks of traffic accidents and physical inactivity are arguable even greater and may be even harder to overcome. But what are the broader implications of shifting towards a perspective of accessibility for territories outside of urban cores? Before getting there, it is important to appreciate how mobility actually differs when comparing larger cities and their urban neighbourhoods with variations across Urbanes Land. The following example of two equally affluent territories in southern Germany is helpful: the Urbanes Land of the Ulm-Donau region and Germany’s third largest city, Munich. Not unlike the situation in larger metropolitan regions, mobility patterns in Urbanes Land can differ considerably even within the same territories. For the wider Ulm region, this ranges from 37 per cent car use within the City of Ulm itself, to 67 per cent in the neighbouring district of Biberach. Walking and cycling range from 48 per cent to 28 per cent, and public transport use between 15 per cent and 5 per cent respectively (ix). Motorisation levels fluctuate around 500 cars per 1000 inhabitants, but in some areas this even exceeds 700 cars (x). The City of Munich has a 34 per cent share of car use, 24 per cent public transport and 42 per cent walking and cycling (xi), with a motorisation level of 480 cars per 1000 inhabitants (xii). Among the most urban districts, the use of cars in Maxvorstadt is only at 19 per cent, with 23 per cent share of public transport, and 58 per cent of walking and cycling (xiii). Besides the considerable variations within each region, this comparison highlights that the main difference between the two areas is the share of public transport, while walking and cycling reach considerable levels across both. The comparison also indicates that inner city areas in large cities are uniquely able to reduce car dependence, conversely enabling the primacy of walking and cycling. Interestingly, however, the urban cores of Urbanes Land such as the City of Ulm, can come close to such levels of non-motorised transport. By contrast, the main predicament of accessibility patterns in Urbanes Land is posed by its peripheral regions, where there is a considerable level of dependence on cars. What should an emerging agenda for better accessibility look like; one that takes account of the characteristics of Urbanes Land while considering the multiple crises outlined above? And, above all, what should be done so that such regions contribute to the required global carbon emission reduction of 7.6 per cent annually over the next decade (xiv) in order to ensure a safer planet?

As a baseline for transport policy, the following actions target changes in mobility behaviour which, over the coming few years, could lead towards the required two-digit percentage change: First, the low-density and car-oriented growth of settlements in peripheral locations needs to be stopped completely. Across Germany, 56 hectares of new land are still being developed every single day, even though a 30-hectare target was established during the early 2000s (xv). Given the country’s currently more or less stable population, this leads to a further reduction of urban densities and a subsequent loss of related environmental efficiencies. Achieving this goal, or ideally stopping horizontal settlement growth, may require fiscal restructuring that is aimed at reducing the incentives for smaller municipalities to expand, in addition to strong regional planning. Second, following the paradigm of decentralised concentration, future population growth could be accommodated through urban intensification in the most accessible centres of Urbanes Land, enhancing urbanity and creating 15-minute towns and small cities connected by higher-frequency regional rail. Imagine a few Barcelona Cerdablocks established around the main railway stations – a form of island urbanism for Urbanes Land. Such interventions can even intensify the edges of existing, highly accessible settlements, creating accentuated urban/nature interfaces between higher density, mixed-use buildings and open land rather than the suburban blending of these borders with detached houses. Besides creating unique living conditions with immediate access to both nature and urbanity, pronounced edges can help protect against further horizontal expansion. Third, new forms of shared electric mobility – at some point autonomous – cutting across digital van services and other forms of more flexible public transport, which will improve connectivity across areas that tended to be entirely car-dependent. Cycling and micro-mobility can complement these systems, even in semi-urban areas. Conventional car use will have to be priced at levels that incorporate societal and climate costs, for which new regional road charging schemes can be the primary policy instrument. Lessons from larger cities that have reduced parking in the most accessible parts of the region to an absolute minimum may also be key. Fourth, digital connectivity needs to be prioritised over adding more road capacity in order to achieve a considerable reduction in the need to travel. For Urbanes Land, there is a stronger case than ever before for “more cables and fewer roads”. The pandemic has shown that high productivity and innovation can be maintained while significantly reducing the intensity of physical travel. Arguably these are just some initial and obvious ideas, while the most important message may well be to break with the status-quo of unsustainable accessibility that most urban regions are suffering from. Any such rapid and radical change requires new forms of democratic legitimacy, which the active and committed citizenry of Urbanes Land is well positioned to establish. Urbanes Land may have a unique opportunity, inventing urbanity at the scale of city blocks surrounded by the amenities of nature, which many cities now lack. Its biggest risk is becoming Suburban Land with “a carport in the front, a private garden in the back.”

This article was published in the 114 issue of topos – The International Review of Landscape Architecture and Urban Design. topos 114 – which is about the main topic “fringes” – explores that which lies at the edges, that which is located in the transition between two systems; that which sets a mark, but which also merges fluidly or even in fragile ways from one element into the other while still being able to accommodate one or more centres within it. Get more information and a copy of the magazine here.