A FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD MOBILITY PLANS IN PORTUGAL

When developing a new urban area, town and transport planners have to establish the type of transport infra-structure and service that best fits the particular site and its future inhabitants. However in the existing urban areas one does not have the advantage of a “blank sheet” start, several restrictions have to be faced if one is to manage mobility geared towards efficiency and people’s aspirations. During the last decade Mobility Plans have been developed in many cities of the world. These plans deal with major policy orientations in key subjects such as parking, traffic and land use. But when we zoom in to a closer scale, we face a more detailed mobility situation that many times stays unobserved and unmanaged. Neighborhood Mobility plans are meant to respond to that specific need, detecting localized problems and opportunities and trying to foster them to neighborhood and city agendas, supported with specific proposals of intervention. This paper presents a framework for the development of neighborhood mobility plans, and tests that framework for the neighborhood of Campo de Ourique in Lisbon (Portugal), engaging in a reflection of its importance in solving and taking advantage of specific problems and opportunities of this neighborhood. This is useful in establishing an orientation for future development of these plans as part of Lisbon’s Mobility Plan. Some of the conclusions of this study point out to the importance of developing this kind of integrated analysis; it may become a powerful decision making tool that will give policy makers a more accurate knowledge of the actual mobility situation in each neighborhood, allowing to better respond to people’s needs and at the same time helping to promote the acceptance of some mobility changes to local citizens. But possibly the most important conclusion of this work is that neighborhood mobility plans are able to find simple and inexpensive solutions for some of the Problems/Opportunities which otherwise could stay undetected.

[1]  Michael E. Jackson,et al.  Let the People Be Heard: San Diego County Bicycle Use and Attitude Survey , 1998 .

[2]  Susan Hanson,et al.  Critical mass: forging a politics of sustainable mobility in the information age , 2001 .

[3]  Kelly J. Clifton,et al.  Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile travel , 2001 .

[4]  Iain Docherty,et al.  Civic Culture, Community and Citizen Participation in Contrasting Neighbourhoods , 2001 .

[5]  M. Joseph Sirgy,et al.  How Neighborhood Features Affect Quality of Life , 2002 .

[6]  George Yannis,et al.  Off-Street Parking Choice Sensitivity , 2002 .

[7]  鹿田 成則,et al.  講座 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL 2000(3)2車線道路と多車線道路 , 2002 .

[8]  Todd Litman,et al.  Economic Value of Walkability Economic Value of Walkability , 2022 .

[9]  Jennifer Dill,et al.  Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities: If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them , 2003 .

[10]  V. E. Daniel,et al.  Determinants of bicycle use: do municipal policies matter? , 2004 .

[11]  Ema Silva Mobility Plans on a Local scale: Parking, Traffic and Pedestrians , 2004 .

[12]  K. Sælensminde COST-BENEFIT ANALYSES OF WALKING AND CYCLING TRACK NETWORKS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT INSECURITY, HEALTH EFFECTS AND EXTERNAL COSTS OF MOTORIZED TRAFFIC , 2004 .

[13]  A. Bauman,et al.  Associations of Location and Perceived Environmental Attributes with Walking in Neighborhoods , 2004, American journal of health promotion : AJHP.

[14]  Toru Nakamura WHITE PAPER, European transport policy for 2010 : time to decide , 2004 .

[15]  Jose M Viegas Integrated Transport Systems: Public-Private Interfaces , 2005 .