Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Anthony D. May
To cite this article: Anthony D. May (2013) Urban Transport and Sustainability: The
Key Challenges, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 7:3, 170-185, DOI:
10.1080/15568318.2013.710136
Download by: [Universidad de los Andes] Date: 30 January 2017, At: 10:54
International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 7:170185, 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 worlds 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
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-
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).
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.
A separate UK project (May et al. 2005) used optimisation techniques combined
with a predictive model to identify that set of policy instruments which performed
best against an objective function representing the objectives listed above. The
methodology was in many ways similar to that in PROPOLIS, but with the added
advantages of using the same model in all cities, and of using the optimisation rou-
tine to generate the most effective package of a given set of policy instruments.
The study considered four types of policy instrument: changes in bus fares,
changes in bus frequencies, road pricing in the city center, and low cost changes
in road capacity. These instruments were optimised in the peak and the off peak
for two years: 5 and 15 years after the base year. Levels were assumed to rise linearly
between these two years, and to stay at the year 15 level thereafter. Table 2 com-
pares the optimal strategies for Edinburgh and Leeds without and with the
inclusion of fares policy, reflecting a situation in which local authorities were
not readily able to determine fares.
In Edinburgh, the optimal strategy without fares involves increases in frequen-
cies, peak period cordon charges and the maximum increase in road capacity.
When fares can be changed they are set to their lowest level, and frequencies
and road pricing charges are raised. The objective function (OF) is increased by
80%, indicating clearly the benefits to be gained from a fares reduction. Conversely
the financial outlay becomes much higher. In Leeds the optimal strategy without
fares has high frequency increases, peak and off-peak cordon charges and the
maximum road capacity increase. When fares can be changed they are again set
to their lowest level, but there is little change in the other instruments. The objec-
tive function is increased by 10%; once again the financial outlay is much higher.
These results show the importance of cities having control over fares policy, as a
means of substantially increasing benefits. However, they also highlight the need
for substantial revenue support, as represented by the present value of the finan-
cial outlay (PVF). Conversely, without changes in fares, the strategy changes are
largely self-funding.
The optimal strategy, with fares policy, was also determined after imposing a
financial constraint that the net present value of financial costs (less any revenues
generated) (PVF) should not exceed that for the current strategy. The main
responses to the financial constraint in Edinburgh were to reduce frequency
increases and to introduce off-peak cordon charges. The objective function was
reduced by around 15%. In Leeds frequencies were not changed, but off peak fares
Key: P peak; OP off peak; 05 change from base in year 5; 15 change from base in year 15; OF objective function; PVF 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
planning, appear likely to add significantly to the performance of such strategies
(Chatterjee and Bonsall 2009). This is an area of urban transport policy in which
more research and empirical evidence is needed.
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 0.40.5 (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
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).
. 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 Forums 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.
May AD. 2004. Singapore: The development of a world class transport system. Transport
Reviews 24(1):79101.
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):184201.
May AD, Crass M. 2007. Sustainability in transport: Implications for policy makers. Transpor-
tation Research Record 2017:19.
May AD, Kelly C, Shepherd S, Jopson A. 2012. An option generation tool for potential urban
transport policy packages. Transport Policy 20:162173.
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.
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 1924:129138.
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.