Urban Transport and Sustainability: The Key Challenges

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 special issue on modeling, suggests the resulting requirements for model development.

Key Words:

• barriers
• decision-support
• innovation
• integrated packages
• sustainability
• urban transport

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article is based on a longer report produced as background to the International 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.

Notes

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.

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.

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).

° Least severe problems identified in DISTILLATE case studies and Atkins (2007).

– Not addressed in the survey.