TRANSPORT NETWORK PLANNING: THEORETICAL NOTIONS

TRANSPORT NETWORK PLANNING: THEORETICAL NOTIONS

2.7

the system by traffic that could use a lower-order network. It may affect livability in the
area, and it undermines the intended differentiation in systems. Although this dilemma plays
a role in individual as well as in collective systems, the outcome of the question is different
for each type:

In the collective systems, the access point is preferably situated in the center of the urban

area. This is because changing from one collective system to another always involves a
physical transfer (from one vehicle to the next). Transfers should be kept at a minimum,
which means that it is desirable to concentrate access points of all collective subsystems
in one location.
In contrast, a transfer from one individual system to the next is almost seamless: passengers
do not change vehicles. With livability issues in mind, access points are usually planned
outside built-up areas. This also helps in fighting the undesired use of through roads (and
sometimes congestion) by short-distance traffic.

2.4.4 Dilemma 4: Network Density

Once it has been established which cities need to be connected, it still has to be decided
whether these cities should be connected by direct links or by way of another city. More
links means higher-quality connections because there are fewer detours. In public transport,
however, limiting the number of links makes higher frequencies possible. Obviously, more
links mean higher costs, not only in infrastructure investments but also in the effects on the
environment.
What network density will be acceptable depends chiefly on two factors:

The amount of traffic: high volumes justify the need for extra infrastructure.
The difference of quality between two subsystems: a greater difference (in design speed)

between scale levels means that a greater detour is acceptable when using the higher-order
system.

2.5

FEASIBILITY OF DESIGN
In practice there will be a trade-off between the ideal network design and the realistic
network design. The difference between both networks is mainly related to the resources
that are available to lay the new infrastructure. The term feasibility of design has to be
interpreted, however, in relation to the gradual development of a network and the wish to
have a long-term view. On the basis of such a view of the ideal structure of the network,
the various investment steps can be better substantiated and the network coherence better
guaranteed. The absence of a long-term view results in an incoherent bottleneck approach
that poses questions. The risk is then considerable that all kinds of short-term utilization
measures will form the basis of a long-term infrastructure policy.

2.6

THE DESIGN PROCESS

2.6.1 Rules of Thumb

Designing means making certain choices with regard to each dilemma. To help the designer,
the design method includes a number of rules of thumb. Certain values to variables are
Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)
Copyright 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.