Cities and innovative urban transport policies.

Two factors explain the success of this program. First, an extensive marketing campaign targeted selected key groups which included environmentally certified (ISO 14000) companies, suppliers to the city council, taxi companies and journalists. In this campaign, the selling point was cost saving and not reduction of emissions per se. Second, and probably most important, the program provided important parking benefits for clean vehicles, making parking in the city extremely cheap for those with clean vehicles and hence highly popular (although the latter could backfire as it promotes car use).

Unlike TfL in London, Traffickantoret--the local authority in charge of traffic and transport--does not have a specific department dealing with mobility management policies but the city actively encourages companies to introduce work travel plans. It does this by surveying employees to identify their needs and helps employers to propose the best alternatives to car use. Once again here, clever marketing has been an essential instrument in success. Gothenburg citizens each make approximately 1,100 trips per year. Using the slogan 'You have 1,100 choices per year', the local authority tries to convince people that car use is not the optimal solution for all their trips (Mingardo et al. 2008). The focus of this communication campaign is again indirectly related to environmental concerns, emphasizing instead the personal benefits of not using the car, such as cost savings and better health.

Another kind of mobility management, this time focusing more directly on the encouragement of public transport use, in Gothenburg started in 2000 at the Alvstranden, a large redevelopment area designed to accommodate 70,000 people: 15,000 inhabitants, 40,000 employees and 15,000 students. This strategy included both putting public transport systems in place early in the life of the redevelopment and linked garaging space in the new development to the public transport use goal. In contrast to most redevelopment projects where new buildings come first and only later, sometimes years, is the public transport infrastructure put in place, in Alvstranden a high standard public transport link with the city centre was created from day one. This system includes both buses, both fast and frequent, and ferries. One of the most successful bus connections, for example, runs every 3-5 minutes during peak hours (Mingardo et al. 2008). Alvstranden is also linked to the city centre by a ferry, co-financed by the local redevelopment corporation. To support the goal of reduced car use, the local authority has introduced very low parking norms for housing, allowing only 0.7 parking spaces per household. This restriction is unusual in Europe; in the Netherlands, for example, most new housing projects provide between 1.6 and 2.0 parking spaces per household. Further, all residents in Alvstranden may only rent, not own, a parking space which costs about 100 [pounds sterling] a month. This restriction has been made more palatable by being combined with support for developing a large number of car share schemes among the inhabitants. The result is that, at present, many inhabitants do not have a car and travel in the city mostly by public transport or by bicycle.

CONCLUSIONS

All over Europe innovations in city transport polices are being devised and implemented and programs similar in many ways to those described in the two cities here are now widespread. For passenger transport these vary from simple schemes, such as the free or cheap bicycle hire-it-here, leave-it-there policies now successfully operating in Paris, Barcelona, Lyon and many other European cities, to unpopular restrictive measures such as the congestion charges in London and Stockholm. For freight transport the innovative solutions vary from the use of Environmental Zones where only the cleanest trucks are allowed to enter, as in London, Gothenburg and Rotterdam, to goods delivery by cargo trams like in Amsterdam, Dresden and Zurich. These projects vary greatly in costs, implementation time, political and societal support but what they have in common is their innovative character. Some of these projects have been realized with the (financial) assistance of the EU; most of them are simply a city's own initiatives. The EU, through its numerous programs related to sustainable transport--among which CIVITAS, MOVE, PIMMS, ASTUTE--has been quite successful in disseminating knowledge and best practices about innovative transport policies.

This paper has argued that decoupling transport from economic growth must be a priority at city level if energy sustainability and improved quality of life are to be achieved at the same time as the economic security and welfare of citizens are enhanced. Achieving this complex goal demands a new approach to urban transport policy that succeeds in reducing car use while not reducing the physical accessibility of city centers and other workplaces. Policymakers need to act both by making public transport options more efficient and available and by undertaking different kinds of mobility management programs. Packages of policies are essential, not a single focus on any one. It may also be that making the often radical shifts in the ways citizens and goods move around in a city demands some creative thinking in approach and the sustained use of marketing strategies that move people's focus onto the improvements to their personal lifestyles and health rather than the more intangible or less immediate benefits of environmental improvement.

In addition, experience in Europe shows that policymakers have different organizational and funding options for delivering innovative transport policies. Some cities, such as London, have powerful, well-funded, centralized organizations that are in control of all aspect of transport in the metropolitan area. Others, such as Gothenburg, have different agencies that are involved in the planning and implementation of the transport policy.

Experience in Europe further shows that policymakers need to think laterally about linking transport issues to other major public concerns such as health and education if they are to be able to make radical shifts. Often these shifts begin with small initiatives which cost the public purse little but are popular and take on their own momentum. The London 'Walk on Wednesdays' described in this paper is clearly one such scheme. Similar initiatives take place also in Rotterdam (the Verkeersslang project), Amsterdam (Biking2skool=Cool), Exeter (Beauty and the Bike), Lund (walking school buses) and many other European cities.

In some cities there has to be a strong mix of sticks and carrots to change behavior in the ways and at the speed desired by city policymakers and managers. This again is evident in London, with its mix of Congestion Charge, mobility management and parking restrictions and in Gothenburg with its combination of reduced parking availability, high quality public transport and heavy use of mobility management in a major new development, for example. Both the exemplar cities described in this paper also involve the private sector in both devising and implementing transport shifts.

In summary, perhaps the strongest message to come from transport innovation in Europe is that action on improvement of physical infrastructure is absolutely essential but, by itself, is insufficient to get rapid and radical citizen transport preference change. Pricing (e.g. the Congestion Charge in London) and technology (the clean vehicles policy in Gothenburg) here have their part, as they always have, but are not enough. A wide range of related initiatives has to be taken at the same time, many of which offer immediate rewards for change rather than a delayed and diffuse 'better future'. Finally, both public and private sector are critical stakeholders and each must play a role in ensuring significant change and be rewarded accordingly.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper forms part of a large project carried out by the European Institute for Comparative Urban Research (EURICUR) in the period 20072008. The author gratefully acknowledges the support and research assistance of his colleagues Leo van den Berg and Jeroen van Haaren. Moreover, the paper has benefited from the very valuable and detailed comments from Jane Marceau.

References

Banister D and Stead D (2002) Reducing Transport Intensity, European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 2(3-4): 161-178.

Beaverstock J-V, Smith R-G and Taylor P (1999) A Roster of world cities, Cities 16(6): 445-458.

Bertolini L, le Clercq F and Straatemeier T (2008) Urban transportation planning in transition, Transport Policy 15(2): 69-72.

Black J, Mason C and Stanley K (1999) Travel Demand Management: policy context and an application by the University of New South Wales (UNSW) as a Large Trip Generator, Transport Engineering in Australia 5(2): 1-11.

Blauwens G, De Baere P and Van de Voorde E (2006) Transport Economics, 2nd edn, Antwerp: De Boeck

Branca F, Nikogosian H and Lobstein T (2007) The challenge of obesity in the WHO European Region and the strategies for response, Copenhagen: WHO.

Brog W (1998) Individualized Marketing: Implications for Transportation Demand Management, Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1618: 116-121.

Business Region Goteborg (BRG) (2007) Facts & Figures 2007 in the Goteborg Region, Business Region Goteborg AB, Goteborg, November 2007.

Chapman L (2007) Transport and climate change: a review, Journal of Transport Geography 15: 354-367.

Coleman C and Curtis C (1997) Reducing Car-based Journey to Work: what potential is there and whose responsibility is it? Local Environment 2(1): 19-37.

Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2001) European Transport Policy for 2020: Time to Decide [COM(2001)370], Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates