Professional Documents
Culture Documents
International Journal of Sustainable Transportation
International Journal of Sustainable Transportation
To cite this article: Anthony D. May (2013): Urban Transport and Sustainability: The Key Challenges,
International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 7:3, 170-185
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 7:170–185, 2013
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1556-8318 print=1556-8334 online
DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2013.710136
Anthony D. May
Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, England
ABSTRACT
This article provides an overview of trends in demand for urban transport,
considers their implications for the achievement of a set of urban transport policy
objectives, and summarizes the principal problems which are likely to arise. It notes
in particular the challenge of meeting climate change goals, which is likely to
dominate the development of urban transport policy over the next four decades.
It considers the range of policy instruments available, and summarizes evidence
on their effectiveness. On this basis it argues that a package of policy instruments
is needed, and provides evidence of good practice in the design of such packages.
It reviews the barriers to the design and implementation of such packages, and
summarizes international guidance on ways of overcoming these barriers. Finally,
in a concluding section, it identifies the principal areas in which innovations are
needed in urban transport policy and, in its role in providing the context for a spe-
cial issue on modeling, suggests the resulting requirements for model development.
Key Words: barriers, decision-support, innovation, integrated packages, sustain-
ability, urban transport
1. INTRODUCTION
The world’s urban population grew from 220 million to 2.8 billion over the
twentieth century. By 2050 it is forecast that there will be 6.9 billion people living
in urban areas, comprising 70% of the global population (UN statistics; May and
Marsden 2010).
The effects of population growth on travel are reinforced by growing car owner-
ship. Dargay (2002) projected changes in the numbers of cars per capita and the
amount of traffic per capita in the different world regions. The data was based on
170
Urban Transport and Sustainability: Challenges
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 17:58 09 December 2012
Figure 1. Estimated changes in road traffic levels relative to year 2000. Source:
Dargay 2002.
recently observed growth rates, forecast changes in GDP and population growth.
All regions of the world are forecast to continue their growth in vehicle ownership
per capita although the levels in Asia and Africa remain comparatively low.
Evidence from Chinese cities suggests average annual growth rates in per capita
vehicle ownership of 10%–25% (Darido, Torres, and Mehndiratta 2010). The com-
bination of growth in ownership and growth in population produces growth in
forecast distance travelled as shown in Figure 1.
These trends are inconsistent with the objectives which cities and governments
are attempting to achieve. We consider these, and the resulting problems, in
Section 2. In Section 3 we review the policy instruments which are available to tackle
these problems and, in Section 4, outline the case for an integrated approach to
employing these instruments. In Section 5 we identify the barriers to pursuing such
an approach, and in Section 6 ways of overcoming them. Finally, in Section 7, we
identify the opportunities for further innovation in urban transport policy, and
the implications for modeling.
Transport Policy (ECMT 2000) identifies a set of objectives, the principal ones
of which are shown in Table 1 in relation to the sustainability ‘‘legs’’ which they
support (May and Crass 2007).
Looking ahead over the next forty years, it would be easy to assume that the set of
policy objectives might not change much. However, there are already emerging
interests in security against terrorism, oil depletion (ODAC 2009), the needs of
an increasingly elderly population (Frye 2011) and resilience against natural disas-
ters such as those arising from climate change (International Panel on Climate
Change 2007). Meanwhile, transport is increasingly being seen as contributing to
other policy sectors such as education and inclusion (Department for Transport
2009a). More importantly, it seem likely that priorities will change, with cities being
required to respond more directly to the challenges of climate change (Inter-
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 17:58 09 December 2012
national Panel on Climate Change 2007) and resource depletion (ODAC 2009).
The problems of urban transport can be identified as failures to meet these
objectives (May and Marsden 2010). The principal threats to urban areas stem from
the anticipated growth in road traffic levels. While this additional mobility will bring
economic benefits to many, it will impose increasing and interconnected burdens
on society. Congestion will damage the viability of public transport and this in turn
will have detrimental impacts on accessibility. Equally, vehicles stuck in traffic will
generate more emissions. The rise in car use will inevitably impose greater safety
risks on pedestrians, cyclists and powered two wheeler users. Moreover, those with-
out access to a car will suffer disproportionately from poor access to the benefits of
urban living, and this problem will grow as the population ages.
The need to address climate change has emerged as the most demanding of
these policy objectives, and the principal challenge for cities around the world will
be to achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while continuing
to achieve the social and economic objectives of a sustainable transport strategy. It is
now generally accepted that future growth in average surface temperatures needs to
be limited to 2 C if the impacts on flooding, storm damage and desertification are
to be minimised. This in turn requires a 50% reduction in 1990 CO2 emissions by
Note: ECMT (2000) also includes reducing severance, fear, and intimidation, which can be
considered a social objective, and protecting landscapes and biodiversity, which relates to
the environment.
2050 (International Panel on Climate Change 2007), and many developed nations
have now set themselves 80% reduction targets to allow for the need for conver-
gence with the much less profligate patterns of fuel consumption in the developing
world (Department for Transport 2009b). Achieving such targets in the face of the
predicted growth in car use represents an immense challenge.
they are introduced (Mackett and Edwards 1998). These infrastructure projects will
be expensive, and care is needed to ensure that they provide value for money.
Lower-cost options such as bus rapid transit are emerging as more cost effective
ways of achieving similar reductions in car use (Wright and Hook 2007).
realm projects. These may lead to reductions in car use, but the evidence on the
scale of such reductions is limited (Goodwin et al. 1998). Improvements in bus ser-
vice frequencies, network coverage and quality provide a lower cost way of increas-
ing public transport capacity. While less effective than light rail provision, they can
still attract perhaps 10% of new users from cars (Balcombe et al. 2004).
3.7. Pricing
Simpler fare structures and lower fares can both increase the attractiveness of
public transport and, once again, perhaps 10% of new users will come from the
car. However, such fare reductions need to be subsidised in the long term, and
can prove to be very expensive (Balcombe et al. 2004). An alternative is to impose
charges on car use. These have been found to reduce traffic in affected areas by
around 15% to 20%, and are an important source of funding for the broader trans-
port strategy. The main barrier to their use is public opinion (May et al. 2010).
policy options will increase further over the next 40 years, but it is difficult to specu-
late on the nature of those developments.
those arising from secular change. Instead, much of the analysis of such packages
has been based on the use of predictive models of the transport system.
Two research programmes have independently used predictive models to ident-
ify the key elements of a sustainable urban transport strategy. The EC PROPOLIS
project (Lautso et al. 2004) used a common analysis and evaluation methodology
in seven cities to assess the contribution of different pre-specified packages of
policy instruments. It concluded that the key contributors were improvements to
public transport services and fares and pricing of urban car use, and that a third
element of more concentrated land use development was needed to reinforce
these two transport measures. The net present value of such strategies was esti-
mated at between $1000 and $3000 per capita. Infrastructure projects proposed
by the cities rarely appeared in the most cost-effective strategies.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 17:58 09 December 2012
Table 2. Unconstrained optima with and without control over fares (May et al. 2005).
Road
Fare Fare Fare Fare Road Road Road Road capacity all OF PVF
change change change change Freq Freq Freq Freq Price Price Price Price periods and (Million (Million
Test P05 P15 OP05 OP15 P05 P15 OP5 OP15 P05 P15 OP05 OP15 years Euros) Euros)
Key: P ¼ peak; OP ¼ off peak; 05 ¼ change from base in year 5; 15 ¼ change from base in year 15; OF ¼ objective function; PVF ¼ present value
of finance.
were increased and peak cordon charges were much higher. The objective
function was only slightly reduced. These optimal strategies had a net present
value of between $3000 and $6000 per capita, and typically reduced car use by
around 15%, when compared with pre-existing strategies.
However, it is important to stress that these solutions are specific to the context in
which they were developed, for a given objective function, for European cities and
using policy instruments on which there was considerable documented evidence. It
has been shown that the optimal strategy will vary as the objective function is chan-
ged (Emberger, May, and Shepherd 2008). It is also probable that the packages of
most suitable measures will differ in cities which are more car-dependent, and in
those of the developing world, which are experiencing much more rapid growth.
Moreover, some of the more recent developments, such as personalised journey
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 17:58 09 December 2012
Table 3. Barriers to the implementation of policy instruments at each stage of the policy process.
Option
Overall Monitoring generation Finance Modeling Appraisal Coordination
Management: Bus services ... .. ... ..
Pricing: Road pricing ... .. ... ...
Pricing: Fares ... .. ... ...
Land use: Development ... .. ... ..
Infrastructure: Light rail .. – .. ..
Awareness: Soft options .. – .. .
Management: Traffic .. . .. .
Information: IT systems . – . .
Management: Walk and bike . ... . .
Infrastructure: Roads . . .. ..
Note: Instruments are listed in order of declining seriousness score: KonSULT categories are also shown to facilitate comparison with Figure 2.
Key: ... Seriousness score >0.5 (Hull 2009).
.. Seriousness score 0.4–0.5 (Hull 2009).
. Seriousness score <0.4 (Hull 2009).
Most severe problems identified in DISTILLATE case studies and Atkins (2007).
179
A. D. May
land use, which are precisely the policy instruments which the research reported
above has shown to be the most important contributors to a sustainable transport
strategy. Moreover, the four policy instruments which are the hardest to implement
suffer at most stages in the policy process.
These barriers will affect different cities in differing ways, and the most effective
cities will wish to learn from one another in addressing them and in pursuing
appropriate strategies. Recent research into the approaches which they adopt
has, however, identified an unsystematic approach to searching for evidence of
good practice. This approach and the perceived inadequacies of the available
information are both barriers to effective policy transfer. However, the existence
of an organisational learning culture appears to be the most critical factor in deter-
mining the extent to which cities attempt to learn from elsewhere, and how they
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 17:58 09 December 2012
approach the search. The effects of learning culture are closely linked to the con-
straints on time and the degree of reliance on informal networks. Cities which
reported more supportive environments and which made resources available also
reported much larger networks of contacts (Marsden 2011).
in which each reinforces the effects of the others, and include measures which
help overcome the financial and acceptability barriers of other elements of the
package. As noted above, this requirement for integrated strategies poses parti-
cular governance challenges.
More generally, improved decision-support tools are needed to enable cities to
enhance their policy processes. Recent research has targeted the development
of such tools on the process barriers of greatest concern to local government
(May 2009b).
and non-governmental organisations can be identified who will help support the
case for action. The public are less likely to accept measures which are novel or
which aim to influence demand for travel. In presenting such solutions, it is impor-
tant for governments to demonstrate that they are the most effective way to solve the
problem, and that long term benefits will justify any short term disruption.
Effective consultation and participation throughout the policy process is a vital
contributor to successful policy formulation. Participation should commence with
joint agreement over objectives and problems, should contribute to the selection
of individual solutions and packages, and should continue throughout the process
of implementation. Participation in these ways may extend the initial stages of pol-
icy formulation, but should accelerate the process of implementation. It is impor-
tant for governments to work with the media in stimulating support for the
strategy. Care needs to be taken not to present them with complex technical argu-
ments or to provide the opportunity for them to emotionalise issues.
ance, finance or the policy process. However, other cities are typically slow to learn
from such innovations, partly because the innovations are often not evaluated
effectively, but mainly because such ‘‘follower’’ cities often do not have in place
a culture of policy learning. More needs to be done to support the development
of more effective policy transfer methods, particularly across regional boundaries
where culture and implementation conditions can be quite different.
Innovation in urban transport policy can be applied at several stages in the policy
process, as illustrated in Figure 3 (May and Marsden 2010). At the early stages of
understanding problems and developing possible solutions, innovations in
decision-support tools and in the policy making process can help overcome barriers
to progress. In considering the range of possible solutions, innovations in tech-
nology and also in policy instruments can contribute to a richer policy package.
Once policies are being prepared for implementation, innovations in governance,
in finance and in increasing public acceptability will help to streamline the
implementation process. Finally, when one city has achieved success with an inno-
vative policy, innovations in learning culture and in information exchange can help
ensure effective policy transfer to other cities. To be fully effective, innovation in
urban transport policy needs to be pursued, and encouraged, on all of these fronts.
Developments in modeling can contribute to all of these, but are particularly
important as contributors to analysis, policy development and acceptability. To
be effective, models of the urban transport system need to be able to:
. reflect the full range of objectives associated with sustainability, and gener-
ate the outcome indicators which measure performance against these objec-
tives; almost certainly the equity objective will present the greatest
challenge, because it requires estimates of impacts on a wide range of
sub-groups of society;
. provide realistic estimates of future problems, and hence future levels of
these performance indicators;
. estimate the effects of the full range of policy instruments, including newly
emerging policy instruments; this in turn requires the greater availability of
ex-post evaluations of implemented policies; Table 3 indicates the types of
policy instrument for which most model development is required;
. represent the effects of packages of policy instruments, and the interactions
between them;
Figure 3. The roles of innovation in urban transport policy. Source: May and
Marsden 2010.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This article is based on a longer report produced as background to the Inter-
national Transport Forum’s conference on transport and innovation in Leipzig
in May 2010. The author is grateful to the ITF for their support, and to Dr Gregory
Marsden for his contributions to the original paper.
REFERENCES
Balcombe R, Mackett R, Paulley N, Preston J, Shires J, Titheridge H, Wardman M, White P.
2004. The demand for public transport: A practical guide. Transportation Research
Laboratory Report TRL593. London: Transportation Research Laboratory.
Darido GB, Torres M, Mehndiratta S. 2010. Urban transport and CO2 emissions: Some evi-
dence and trends from Chinese cities. Paper presented to 89th Transportation Research
Board Annual Meeting, Washington DC, January 10–14.
Department for Transport. 2009a. Guidance on Local Transport Plans. London: DfT.
Department for Transport. 2009b. Low Carbon Transport: A Greener Future. London: DfT.
DG Environment. 2005. Expert working group on sustainable urban transport plans.
Brussels, DGEnv.
DG Energy and Transport. 2007. Towards a New Culture for Urban Mobility. Brussels,
Belgium: DGTREN.
Emberger G, May AD, Shepherd SP. 2008. Optimal urban transport strategies: A comparison
of CBA and target based approaches. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation
2(1):58–75.
ECMT. 1995. Urban travel and sustainable development. Paris: OECD.
ECMT. 2000. Sustainable Transport Policies. Paris: OECD.
ECMT. 2002. Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies. Paris: OECD.
ECMT. 2006. Sustainable Urban Travel: Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies:
Applying the 2001 Key Messages. Paris: ECMT.
Frye A. 2011. Mobility: rights obligations and equity in an ageing society. International
Transport Forum discussion paper 2011.05. Paris: OECD.
Goodwin, PB, Hass-Klau C, Cairns S. 1998. Evidence of the effects of road capacity reduction
on traffic levels. Traffic Engineering and Control 39(6):348–354.
Hull A. 2009. Implementing innovatory transport measures: What local authorities in the UK
say about their problems and requirements. European Journal of Transport Infrastruc-
ture Research 9(3):202–218.
International Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate change 2007: Synthesis report.
Geneva: IPCC.
Lautso K, Spiekermann K, Wegener M, Sheppard I, Steadman P, Martino A, Domingo R,
Gayda S. 2004. Planning and research of policies for land use and transport for increas-
ing urban sustainability (PROPOLIS): Final report to the European Commission.
Brussels: EC.
Lyons GD. 1998. An assessment of teleworking as a practice for travel demand management.
Proc. Institution of Civil Engineers Transport 129(4):195–200.
Mackett R, Edwards M. 1998. The impact of new urban public transport systems. Transpor-
tation Research A 32:231–245.
Marsden GR, Snell C. 2009. The role of indicators, targets and monitoring in decision-support
for transport. European Journal of Transport Infrastructure Research 9(3):219–236.
Marsden GR, Frick KT, May AD, Deakin E. 2011. How do cities approach policy innovation
and policy learning?. Transport Policy 18:501–512.
May AD. 2004. Singapore: The development of a world class transport system. Transport
Reviews 24(1):79–101.
May AD. 2009a. Green city transport: The state of the art. Keynote address: Green transport
for growing cities. Land Transport Academy, Singapore.
May AD. 2009b. Improving decision-making for sustainable urban transport. European
Journal of Transport Infrastructure Research 9(3):184–201.
May AD, Crass M. 2007. Sustainability in transport: Implications for policy makers. Transpor-
tation Research Record 2017:1–9.
May AD, Kelly C, Shepherd S, Jopson A. 2012. An option generation tool for potential urban
transport policy packages. Transport Policy 20:162–173.
May AD, Koh A, Blackledge D, Fioretto M. 2010. Road user charging and its transport policy
implications: Findings from the CURACAO project. Proc Transport Research Arena
Europe, Brussels.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 17:58 09 December 2012
May AD, Marsden GR. 2010. Urban transport and mobility. Forum paper 5, International
Transport Forum 2010: Transport and innovation: Unleashing the potential. Paris,
OECD.
May AD, Shepherd SP, Emberger G, Ash A, Zhang X, Paulley N. 2005. Optimal land use and
transport strategies: Methodology and application to European cities. Transportation
Research Record 1924:129–138.
ODAC. 2009. Preparing for Peak Oil: Local Authorities and the Energy Crisis. London: Oil
Depletion Analysis Centre.
Paulley N, Pedler A. 2000. Integration of Transport and Land Use Planning: Final Report on
TRANSLAND. Crowthorne, UK: TRL.
UITP. 2006. Mobility in Cities Database. Brussels: UITP.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future: Report
of the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Wright L, Hook W. 2007. BRT Planning Guide. New York: Institution for Transportation and
Development Policy.