This paper discusses the question about how to write a literature review paper (LRP). It stresses the primary importance of adding value, rather than only providing an overview, and it then discusses some of the reasons for (or not) actually writing an LRP, including issues relating to the nature and scope of the paper. It also presents different types of LRPs, advises on reporting the methodology used for the selection of papers for review, and the structure of an LRP. An important conclusion is that the heterogeneity in LRPs is very large. This paper also presents some of the aspects that the authors feel are important structural and contextual considerations that help produce high-quality review papers.

In this paper, we present the case that traditional transport appraisal methods do not sufficiently capture the social dimensions of mobility and accessibility. However, understanding this is highly relevant for policymakers to understand the impacts of their transport decisions. These dimensions include the distribution of mobility and accessibility levels over particular areas or for specific population groups, as well as how this may affect various social outcomes, including their levels of participation, social inclusion and community cohesion. In response, we propose a method to assess the socially relevant accessibility impacts (SRAIs) of policies in some of these key dimensions. The method combines the use of underlying ethics principles, more specifically the theories of egalitarianism and sufficientarianism, in combination with accessibility-based analysis and the Lorenz curve and Gini index. We then demonstrate the method in a case study example. Our suggestion is that policymakers can use these ethical perspectives to determine the equity of their policies decisions and to set minimum standards for local transport delivery. This will help them to become more confident in the development and adoption of new decision frameworks that promote accessibility over mobility and which also disaggregate the costs and benefits of transport policies over particular areas or for specific under-served population groups.

In the last decade the importance of attitude‐related residential self‐selection has frequently been recognized. In addition people can theoretically self‐select them with respect to other location choices, such as job locations, with respect to travel behaviour, or with respect to the exposure to transport externalities such as noise and congestion. In this paper, we argue that insights into self‐selection processes might significantly improve our knowledge on location choices, travel behaviour and transport externalities. We elaborate on options for self‐selection and briefly formulate methodologies for research into self‐selection.

Increasing the number of people cycling to work brings a number of benefits: it can lead to reductions in air pollution and traffic jams, and increases people’s physical activity levels. We investigated the extent to which work-related factors influence (1) whether an individual decides to cycle to work, and (2) whether an individual cycles to work every day. It is anticipated that the office culture and colleagues’ and employers’ attitudes would significantly influence both decisions. These factors are expected to impact the provision of cycling facilities and financial compensation schemes in the workplace. We conducted an Internet survey in 4 Dutch municipalities, gathering data from over 4,000 respondents. The results suggest that the following factors increase the likelihood of being a commuter cyclist: having a positive attitude towards cycling; colleagues’ expectations that an individual will cycle to work; the presence of bicycle storage inside; having access to clothes changing facilities; and needing a bicycle during office hours. The presence of facilities for other transport modes, an increase in the commute distance, and the need to transport goods, in turn, reduces the chance that an individual will cycle. Cycling frequency is negatively affected, meanwhile, by an increase in commute distance, a free public transport pass or car parking provided by the employer. These results indicate that an individual’s working situation affects the commuting cycling behaviour. The findings also indicate that (partly) different variables influence an individual’s decision to cycle to work, and their decision to cycle every day.

Ex ante evaluations of transport policy options (including infrastructure plans) are generally based on cost-benefit analyses (CBA). Accessibility changes are included in such analyses indirectly, via a utilitarian perspective. But accessibility is broader than is assumed by this perspective and also incorporates equity and related distribution effects as well as social exclusion. This paper aims to give an overview of the relevance of distribution effects and equity, and social exclusion for accessibility, based on the literature. The most important conclusions of our paper is that the two subjects are poorly addressed in transport appraisal in general, and in CBA in particular. Additional ethical theories could add value to the utilitarian perspective, egalitarian theories being a major competitor. Equity analysis is however complex because there are several types of equity, various ways to categorize people for equity analysis, numerous impacts to consider, and various ways of measuring these impacts. And such analysis requires normative judgements, in addition to simply presenting distribution effects. Several options are available to express distribution effects. Important choices to be made if such effects need to be reported relate to the unit of comparison (e.g. the household versus the individual), the indicator to be used, and the value of each unit to be compared (e.g. accessibility) for all units of comparison (e.g. households). We also conclude that CBA is not suitable for evaluating social exclusion policies. Based on this overview we propose an agenda for potential future research in the area of ethics and accessibility.

This paper aims to explore the potential of carsharing in replacing private car trips and reducing car ownership and how this is affected by its attributes. To that affect, a stated choice experiment is conducted and the data are analyzed by latent class models in order to incorporate preference heterogeneity. The results show that around 40% of car drivers indicated that they are willing to replace some of their private car trips by carsharing, and 20% indicated that they may forego a planned purchase or shed a current car if carsharing becomes available near to them. The results further suggest that people vary significantly with respect to these two stated intentions, and that a higher intention of trip replacement does not necessarily correspond to higher intention of reducing car ownership. Our results also imply that changing the system attributes does not have a substantial impact on people’s intention, which suggests that the decision to use carsharing are mainly determined by other factors. Furthermore, deploying electric vehicles in carsharing fleet is preferred to fossil-fuel cars by some segments of the population, while it has no negative impact for other segments.