Cities and innovative urban transport policies.

Health as an integral part of transport policy

Linking health to transport policies is both timely in itself and a useful way of persuading citizens to change transport choices. One of the new aims of city transport policy is linking transport and health policies so as to improve the health of citizens. Health has become a major issue in modern western societies and therefore in our cities. Both in the EU and in the US, evidence has been found of the link between air pollution and premature death. On average, each European takes half a day off a year due to illness related to air pollution alone, costing the economy more than 80bn [euro] (Mingardo et al. 2008). Observers such as Stead (2008), for example, have recently emphasized the increasing need for policy integration to bring together transport, health and environmental policy issues. Overweight affects between 30% and 80% of adults living in Europe and up to one third of children and rates of obesity are rising in all EU countries. The related treatment costs are estimated to be approximately 6% of total health care expenditure; indirect costs related to the lost in productivity might have similar figures. Childhood obesity deserves special attention: over 60% of children who are overweight in their puberty will be overweight in early adulthood, increasing the burden on health services (Branca et al. 2007).

Transport policies are thus now beginning to include references to healthy lifestyles and related concerns. Actions that can be promoted in order to stimulate physical activity in the population include, among others, 'promoting safe physically active transport, especially for commuting to schools and workplaces; adapting workplaces to improve the motivation for being physically active' (Branca et al. 2007: 36). In the UK, for example, most people do not get enough physical activity and 'nearly 58% of trips by car are less than five miles (30 minutes by bike) and nearly 25% are less than two miles (30 minutes brisk walk)' (Crombie 2008: 5). Promoting active travel options like walking and cycling within companies, for example, improves the health and fitness of the employees.

The role of the private sector

Public authorities alone may not be able to provide the innovative city transport systems needed. In the 21st century the contribution that the private sector can make to improving and sustaining a city's physical accessibility must be carefully reconsidered. On the one hand, a city might not be capable of planning and implementing a transport policy using only its own resources. Urban transport policies are complex, having to deal with often conflicting aims and multiple actors. Close cooperation with the private sector is absolutely necessary; since the business community plays an important role in the economic development of the city it should be equally involved in the development of transport policies (Mingardo et al. 2008). The city must keep firm control of the policy, however, to avoid enabling private interests (which may prefer higher mobility by car) to overwhelm public interests.

On the other hand, the increasing emphasis on sustainability and climate change as key issues in many corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies mean that many, especially large, companies are willing to contribute more to the creation of a more accessible and sustainable city. Major employers must play an important role in the promotion of alternatives to car use (Coleman & Curtis 1997). The implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies requires policies to be formulated not only by governments but also by major trip generators, such as universities or other large employers (Black et al. 1999). Many large companies such as GlaxoSmithKline, BBC and Oracle in London, now encourage their employees to use public transport or cycle to work. Promotion of public transport use is made by providing interest-free season ticket loans or free shuttle bus services between the office locations and local Underground stations (TfL 2008a). Bike use is helped by providing secure cycle parking, regular on-site cycle maintenance sessions, vouchers for cycle retailers and facilities for cyclists such as lockers, showers and drying facilities (TfL 2006b).Other companies, such as Rabobank in the Netherlands, choose only fuel-efficient cars for their fleets. Eco-driving training, a way of driving motor vehicles that reduces fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, programs for employees are relatively common in Finland, the UK and the Netherlands (www.ecodrive. org). Many more try to minimize the transport movements through a more extensive use of IT for tele-working and video conferencing (Mingardo et al. 2008).

Three main factors drive private companies' environmental concern: first, sustainable mobility makes companies save lots of money in terms of reduced costs for parking, fleet management costs, home-work allowances and staff expenses. For example, providing excellent facilities and incentives for a cyclist costs GlaxoSmithKline in London up to 80% less than a car driver requiring a parking space (TfL 2008a: 12). Second, concern for sustainability can be a very effective marketing tool as it builds a positive image among customers and the public; third, it makes companies more attractive as employers.

Unintended effects of transport policies

Transport policies are designed to achieve specific goals, such as less congestion, higher public transport transit, fewer accidents and so on, but are prone to many unintended consequences which are often neglected or ignored (Mingardo et al. 2008). These can be considerable, however, and innovative cities should not ignore them.

Goodwin (2003: 612) has collated evidence that building roads with the intent of speeding up traffic usually generates extra traffic, giving little or no speed benefits and worse environmental damage. Parkhurst (2000) and Mingardo (2008a, 2008b) provide evidence that Park and Ride facilities, meant to reduce traffic and increase transit in urban areas, divert people from public transport and increase the amount of car-km generated outside the urban area. Rietveld (2007) suggests that the introduction of paid parking in urban areas might stimulate short parking instead of long parking with the consequence of more cars entering the city. He also advocates that the promotion of more efficient cars leads to lower cost per km and, as such, might encourage people to travel more. Finally, van Goeverden et al. (2006) show that free public transport encourages switch to cycling and walking. The impact of these unintended effects varies greatly, to the extent that sometimes they may outweigh the desired effects (Goodwin 2003; Mingardo 2008a, 2008b).

Several factors explain the occurrence of unintended effects, including insufficient consideration of the objectives, imperfect understanding of the policy instrument, inadequate appreciation of demand and supply factors or not taking specific local circumstances into account (Goodwin 2003: 611). Transport policy makers must always be fully aware that the effects of each transport policy are inevitably complex.

INNOVATIVE TRANSPORT POLICIES IN TWO EUROPEAN CITIES

Cities must now take an innovative approach to transport policy. Decoupling economic growth from the negative externalities of transport must be recognized as priority number one for policy. Further increase in private car use is simply not bearable anymore in urban areas because of the pollution caused and the unreliable travel times created, aspects of daily experience that have major negative impacts on quality of life. Cities failing to provide high standards of quality of life will not be competitive in a knowledge-based economy (van den Berg et al. 2005).

In order to achieve its aims, innovative urban transport policy should:

* make extensive use of marketing and mobility management measures;

* consider health as a focal point;

* actively involve the private sector;

* take into consideration the unintended effects they might generate.

In the rest of this section the author presents the innovative character of recent transport policies in two European cities: London in the UK and Gothenburg in Sweden.

London: Managing demand and increasing transit supply

London is, of course, a major metropolis fueled by financial markets and other service industries and a major international economy and classed by Sassen (2001) as a 'global city', together with New York and Tokyo. In Europe, since 1990 the Cushman & Wakefield European Cities Monitor has ranked London first as the best place to do business in Europe (Mingardo et al. 2008). The literature on world cities as reviewed by Beaverstock et al. (1999) showed that London is designated a world city in 23 out of the 27 reports analyzed. The Global Financial Centres Index also recognized London as a top financial centre in 2007, noting that '40 per cent of the world's foreign equities are traded in London, alongside over 30 per cent of currency transactions' (Greater London Authority 2008: 14).

From an environmental point of view, however, data on CO, N[O.sub.2] and NVOC (non-volatile organic compounds) show that London scores considerably lower at European level (Mingardo et al. 2008). London has the poorest air quality in the whole of the UK (Transport for London 2006a). Of total C[O.sub.2] emissions registered in London, 21% of are caused by transport while almost three quarters of this 21% comes from passenger and freight vehicles. Air quality trends, however, are upward: between 1990 and 2006 London's total C[O.sub.2] emissions actually fell by 1.5%. This is a quite remarkable achievement considering the 10% increase in population and sustained economic growth in the same period (GLA 2008).

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates