In the present article, we seek to understand the reasons for spatial anchoring and/or daily mobility and more specifically to know if spatial registration of mobility practices reflects spatial inequity, social inequality between households or a real choice from them. Whereas spatial and social inequalities can be translated into quantifiable indicators, the concept of the interaction with living environment is more difficult to apprehend. This is why we question the meaning given by each individual to its living environment and to its spatial practices to understand choices done in terms of spatial inscriptions and as a consequence mobility. Based on the results of empirical studies of recent research on nine residential areas located in two cities: Paris and Rome, this articles evaluates the effects of the interaction to the living environment of the inhabitant’s practices and shows the adjustment to the individual and his living place and the link between anchoring and mobility.
Walking is used surprisingly often in spite of the low speed it offers. To understand this paradox, we analyze how it fits within daily mobility patterns through the lens of multimodal practices, using the Parisian region transport survey (EGT) of 2010. More specifically, we focus on the articulation over distinct trips over the course of a day between walking and other transportation modes. Thus we isolate two very different behaviors : i) the combination of walking and public transports, associated with trip chains containing both modes, mainly carried out by working populations visiting dense areas; ii) the use of both walking and the car, in which each mode is in a specific trip chain, practiced by non-working individuals living in the suburbs. Performing at least one trip on foot over the course of a day does not have the same meaning in these two cases. In the first one, it is a way of accessing rapidly resources close by and thus of being able to insert non-work activities in a tight schedule, in the second one it is associated with leisure destinations and the logic behind this mode choice is rather one of pleasure. Thus the use of walking to get around does not obey a unique logic: far from being simply an indicator of a more relaxed lifestyle, it can be a highly effective way to carry out daily activity schedules.
In this paper based on empirical microeconomic choices of households, we use the hedonic pricing method to define the urban form of Nantes Métropole. The number of Central Business Districts (CBDs) should guide the second generation of transport policies in agglomerations subject to the LAURE law (law on air and the rational use of energy). Thus, if improved accessibility is capitalized into residential property values close to public transport, then strengthening the current incentive policy in favor of public transport networks and active modes seems appropriate to continue to limit the negative externalities generated by car trips in urban areas. Conversely, if improved accessibility is capitalized close to major roads, then a more coercive policy can take over in the form of an urban toll: this will generate revenue to subsequently improving the public transport network. In fact, the Spatial Durbin Model (SDM) reveals that Nantes situation matches neither the one nor the other of these patterns. In line with the theoretical background, acting on travel costs would nevertheless lead to a higher demand for centrality by house purchasers. So the major component of the local environmental policy could be a prior land-use policy involving a better control of space consumption at any point of the city, coupled with the potential implementation of an urban toll.
This study compares the non-market costs of freight road transport with the specific taxes paid by freight road transport (in France). It utilizes three approaches : a public finance approach, a complete cost approach, and a marginal cost approach. It shows that the treatment of accident and congestion costs is not as straightforward as often assumed. The outcome is that in practically all cases, specific taxes paid by trucks are higher, often much higher, than the costs they inflict upon society.