Let me wade into an ongoing debate among fellow Planetizen bloggers Samuel Staley and Michael Lewyn concerning the meanings of accessibility and mobility, and their implications for transportation and land use policy.
Mobility
Considering A Car-Free L.A.
Mobility Lacking in Toronto
Urban Mobility, 2025
TTI's Urban Mobility Report Flawed, Says Critic
Better Transportation Options to Relieve Inequality in Latin America
Investing in Brazil's Urban Mobility Ahead of the World Cup and Olympics
Redesigning Cities for Better Mobility
Confusing Access and Mobility
The Car Reconsidered
Envision Utah
Chicago Bike Plan
San Diego General Plan Action Plan
Americans Moving Less, Getting Rooted
Portland Learning from Los Angeles

Report from TRB
Last week I attended the Transportation Research Boards (TRB) 89th annual meeting, which attracted approximately 10,000 transportation professionals from around the globe to Washington DC. More than 2,000 papers were presented at more than 700 sessions, plus several hundred committee meetings took place. Let me share some highlights.

Accessibility Vs. Mobility Redux
I’m going to riff off a recent Interchange Blog post by Michael Lewyn on the relationship between mobility and accessibility. Given the positive comments from the planning community to Michael’s post, a little engagement may be necessary for both clarity as well as fully understanding the implications of reading too much into the accessibility versus mobility debate.
Countering the High Costs of Paratransit
Americans Moving Less Amid Recession

Two bad words
Often, participants in public debates use words to mean things very different from their common-sense meanings, in order to manipulate the public’s emotions. Two examples in the field of urban planning come to mind.





















