Integrated transport policies - CG (9) 10 Part II

Rapporteurs:

---------------------------

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

This document is based on the findings of the ECMT-OECD project on Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies.

1. INTRODUCTION

How people and goods move from one place to another in cities is a major factor in whether objectives for urban sustainability are met. Indeed, assuring that the growing numbers of urban and suburban dwellers have access to the services and activities integral to their daily lives, while minimising the negative environmental, equity, economic and health impacts of travel, is the principal goal and challenge facing transport and land-use policy-makers at this time.

There is widespread agreement that in order to bring about sustainable travel in urban areas, integrated policy packages - comprised of a cross-sectoral mix of regulatory, pricing, and technological measures among others - are needed that send the right signals to both the supply and demand elements in urban land use and transport markets. Successful implementation of these policy packages aims to integrate land use and transport planning, manage private vehicle travel, optimise public transport use and promote walking and cycling in urban areas.

Implementing multi-sectoral, integrated policy packages has proven easier said than done, however, for a great number of European cities. Defining and effectively implementing sustainable policy strategies for urban travel involves reconciling the diverse and divergent interests of many actors in the urban transport system. These include national, regional and local levels of government, politicians, public sector transport and land use planning agencies, environmental authorities and pressure groups, private sector transport operators and other service providers, as well as real estate developers and the individual traveller. Co-ordination and co-operation among these stakeholders is complex and often resource-intensive.

Experience from different European countries shows that while many cities and regions are developing policy schemes to render urban travel more sustainable, translating these plans from words to action is often a much more difficult task. All levels of government - national, regional and local - have important roles to play in assuring that effective policy options are identified and implemented. While in most countries the majority of responsibility for urban land-use and travel policies is allocated to regions and municipalities, national governments also play an important role in bringing about sustainability in urban areas. This role includes establishing a broad, sectorally integrated policy framework for regions and cities to build on and sending the right messages via targeted policy incentives and project financing for sustainable development to regions and cities.

This report aims to examine how the different levels of authorities can improve opportunities for implementation of integrated policy strategies for sustainable urban travel.

2. URBAN TRANSPORT TRENDS AND CONSEQUENCES

2.1 Urban development and car ownership

In the majority of European urban areas there has been an ongoing “suburbanisation” of the urban population over the last decade, accompanied by a drop in the number of city centre residents. Especially in the case of capital cities, there has been a significant population growth in the urban periphery.
In some countries, redevelopment of degrading inner cities has started to lure some residents back from outer areas. Successful transport policies as well as measures to reduce noise nuisance also seem to be attracting some population back to the urban core in some cities.

With the exception of cities in Finland and Sweden, per person car ownership has increased since 1990 in virtually all European countries. The average car ownership rate among EU cities is currently around 0.41 cars/person, ranging from 0.60 cars/person in Geneva, Odense, and Weimar to 0.30 cars/person in Athens, Seville, Dublin, and Amsterdam, for example. In the accession countries of Central and Eastern Europe the average increase during this period was more than 30 per cent, bringing the average car ownership rate to 0.29 cars per person. Other CEE countries showed similar increases, although car ownership rates are still lower here, with an average car per person ratio of 0.17.

Car ownership tends to be lowest in city centres where public transport is available and parking space is at a premium; it is highest in suburban areas poorly served by public transport. Though the costs of car use have risen in some countries with increases in fuel taxation in the late 1990s, costs in real terms are below historic highs At the same time the average quality of passenger cars has improved in terms of comfort, durability and accessories, creating additional value for buyers and attraction for use over public transport.

2.2 Private car vs. public transport

While overall number of trips per person per day remained stable during the last decade, private car travel in urban areas soared in the European Union, EU accession and other CEE countries. Per person car trips literally exploded in Central and Eastern Europe, with average car mobility jumping 70 per cent during this period. Growth in car use has been concentrated primarily in suburban areas, involving trips between suburbs and between cities in heavily populated regions. The length of car trips has increased since 1990 in the large majority of urban areas (on average by 20 per cent), which correlates with the “suburbanisation” noted earlier.

At the same time, there has been an overall decrease in public transport trips during the 1990s, in spite of a relative stability in the EU countries. In large and very large urban areas, public transport supply appears to have improved overall in the 1990s, while small- and medium-sized cities show less positive results. Efforts to improve supply in the EU are not always reflected in demand, however. Demand for public transport appears to be decreasing in most of the accession countries, due to increases in car ownership. In these countries all urban areas registered a drop in public transport trips - many of them quite significant decreases. Despite these often very significant declines, public transport usage levels in accession countries remain on average far above western European levels.

There is considerable variance in the share of pedestrian and bicycle trips among European cities, but the general trend is on the decrease. The Netherlands has the highest number of cycling trips in Europe for distances of up to seven kilometres, and the number is slightly increasing (25 per cent of all trips nation-wide, 7 per cent of passenger-km.) The average number of trips on foot dropped 10 per cent over the last decade: In the European Union, walking dropped overall during this period from 0.86 trips per person per day to 0.82. The same general downward slope in walking was seen in CEE countries.

Since commuting and leisure trips by car have lengthened and the number of short trips by car substituting for walking have increased, congestion is encountered more frequently. In many urban regions, congestion is reported to occur for increasingly long periods, as well as more frequently. In many cities the worst congestion has moved from city centres to suburban radial access corridors and particularly to concentric suburb-to-suburb routes. In CEE countries, congestion is perceived as even more severe than in highly motorised OECD cities.

2.3 Air pollution, noise nuisance and road safety

Ozone appears to be the most serious air pollution problem in urban areas, even if recent reviews highlighted improvements in air quality, noise nuisance and accidents in some cities, in response to policies aimed at improving sustainability. Despite an overall improvement in air quality in these cities, there is widespread excedence of ambient limits for particulates in most urban areas and of NOx close to major road arteries.

Noise reduction is a priority area for future attention in most of the European countries. Several cities recorded recent progress but noted concerns for the future. Noise nuisance has tended to shift from local roads to highways, where it should generally be possible to use noise walls to reduce nuisance. Even if the problem is less widespread on more minor roads, dealing with nuisance on smaller arteries is more difficult, largely due to the expense of noise walls relative to traffic flow.

Size of the city seems to be an important factor in perceptions of these problems: pollution and congestion are seen as more serious in larger cities and much less of a problem in medium and small urban areas.

In many European countries, trends in traffic accidents have been uncoupled from the growth in car traffic in recent years. The Netherlands, Italy and Switzerland reported real improvements in road safety, whilst Norway and Finland report fluctuating trends in the number of accidents and fatalities. In some EU accession countries, the number of traffic accidents is rising in proportion to increases in car traffic, and accident rates are much higher overall than in western countries. This is primarily due to insufficient safety awareness and driver education, but poor condition of cars and roads are also factors.

3. POLICY RESPONSES TO TRANSPORT PROBLEMS

Faced with the persistent pressures from urban travel and land-use patterns described above, many European countries, regions and cities are working to develop policy solutions designed to encourage more sustainable travel patterns in urban areas. Despite many difficulties faced in implementing policies, there have been nonetheless some positive steps taken during the last decade.

3.1 Implementing an integrated transport strategy

While few regions/urban areas appear to have actually set out to implement a fully integrated transport strategy yet, most countries have developed, or are in the process of defining policy approaches based on some elements of an integrated strategy. Countries and cities more-experienced with sustainable urban travel policies appear to be experimenting with innovative approaches, including integration of land-use and transport policy, tight parking restrictions and park and ride, and use of telematics in public transport. A small number of countries are working to find ways to integrate congestion pricing and other types of pricing measures into their policy packages.

Whilst the implementation of an integrated transport policy is necessary to bring about long-term reductions in car travel and sustainable development in urban areas, much can be achieved early on through implementation of a package of best practice policies that sends the right signals to transport system clients and stakeholders.

3.2 Decentralisation and national-local government relations

There is a general trend towards decentralisation of power and responsibility for urban transport and environment management, by matching responsibilities with the scale of the problems to be addressed. Several CEE countries, however, have encountered problems in the decentralisation process, citing failure to transfer resources or revenue raising powers concomitant with the newly devolved responsibilities for urban transport to local authorities; as a result, they are extremely short of resources for, among others, public transport.

Planning relationships have traditionally defined national and local government interfaces in many countries. The Netherlands reports a developing approach to institutional interactions involving negotiation rather than planning guidance, with national, regional and local governments drawing up common strategies for sustainable transport in tandem.

The importance of specific national policies in guiding local transport policy is recognised by several countries - particularly the national framework for taxes and charges relating to transport, and clean air laws that place specific responsibility on local authorities. In the planning arena, the recent development of requirements imposed by national government on regional and local authorities to jointly produce urban mobility plans - for example in France, Italy and Belgium - are proving to be a powerful tool for bringing sustainability to the forefront of urban transport decision making.

3.3 Integration of transport and land use planning

Urban mobility plans should contribute to improving the integration of transport and land use planning, a key factor in achieving sustainable urban travel patterns. Norway and the Netherlands report the strongest traditions here, although efforts to attract business to locate in certain areas have led municipalities to compete by offering derogations to planning requirements. Proliferation of large out-of-town shopping malls - major generators of traffic - in the 1990s was symptomatic of a failure to adequately integrate land use and transport planning and has resulted in some countries imposing blanket bans on developments of this kind until more effective policy options are formulated.

More generally, urban sprawl is viewed by many as indicative of a failure to adequately consider the impact of planning decisions on transport networks. This poses a major challenge both for infrastructure project assessment procedures and for integrated policy making. There are powerful forces driving the expansion of urban areas, including: the value many individuals place on living in low density areas; the desire for local authorities to attract business to increase the local tax base, particularly in peripheral residential areas with modest tax resources; the willingness of business to pay for location along radial trunk roads that provide high capacity access; and social policies that provide finance for low-cost housing, often in peripheral zones. Redeveloping central city areas and inner suburbs to make them more attractive to (higher income) residents has proved a successful counter-policy in some European cities, reversing the trend for depopulation of city centres. Redeveloping brownfield sites for business, though expensive particularly where land is contaminated from past industrial activity, has also resulted in some notable successes, for example the London Docklands.

3.4 Public consultation

Improving procedures for public consultation is a policy priority in many European countries. Switzerland has a particularly successful tradition of sophisticated public consultation, reflected in the amount of qualified persons employed in running carefully structured discussions with the public. Consultation is also seen as far more binding on decision-makers than in other countries. In France, some of the urban mobility plans prepared have innovated in this area although cost is a limiting factor - consultation on the urban mobility plan for the Paris region cost 1.8 million euros.

It is increasingly recognised that a policy of sustainable transport requires more than government action, and the need for behavioural change makes involvement of the actors themselves essential. Switzerland has pioneered negotiation with commercial business, employers and private housing corporations to plan for more efficient use of transport infrastructure and reduced environmental impacts. Some renowned large firms are actively re-examining environmental aspects in their transport policies, both for freight and commuter traffic. In Poland some local governments, including in the capital Warsaw, have decided to use a multi-stakeholder process to cope with complex transport problems.

3.5 Improving public transport

High-quality public transport systems characterise many Swiss, Dutch and French cities. Urban areas in Italy, Germany and Finland, among others, also score well in this area. Frequency of service, high-quality vehicles, and integrated ticketing systems for all public transport modes play an important role in most of these cities. In Switzerland, convenient, no-wait connections between train and bus services are being introduced throughout the country. A majority of European cities - particularly in EU accession and other CEE countries - gave priority to measures to improve public transport during the 1990s, and improved public transport services are likely to remain a top priority in the coming decade.

National policies providing fare subsidies for urban rail and bus services can be critical. Cities that have been granted powers to raise their own revenues through specific local transport levies have generally been able to keep fares low whilst improving services and attracting users, at least on rail, metro and tram services (results have often been slower to emerge on buses). For reference, public transport in the Paris region is funded one third from the fare box, one third from an earmarked local business tax and one third from general taxation. There are plans for UK cities to be given funding powers through transport charges earmarked for expenditure on transport. Other city authorities rarely have the resources to subsidise fares, and national government intervention could have a major impact in breaking downward spirals of falling demand, increasing deficits, rising fares and declining services.

Recent experience suggests re-directing financial support to a more local level is productive. The experience of France, Germany and Switzerland in regionalising rail expenditures is significant. Replacing central government transfers to national railways with transfers to regional government to purchase services from the regional divisions of the rail companies has generally resulted in improved services and additional investments in regional rail services.

Switzerland has developed various innovative forms of mobility management that aim to increase the share of public transport by developing co-operative linkages between enterprises, transport operators and local governments. Hotels located in ski stations for example, or the organisers of major sports and music events, provide free public transport passes to clients and compensate rail and bus companies under joint marketing agreements.

The other side of the financial coin is the control of costs. The British (outside London) and Swedish experience with introducing competitive tendering and privatisation in bus services has proved very successful, and other countries - notably the Netherlands and Italy - are following a similar path, albeit more gradually.

3.6 Traffic management

Managing on-road parking capacity has been the bedrock of traffic management in numerous cities in western Europe for many years. The most effective examples of tight parking policy are found in the centres of some major urban areas in Europe such as London, Vienna, and in Swiss cities, where stringent parking policies have been applied in much smaller urban areas. Essential to the success of these policies in reducing traffic is ensuring a coherent fee structure and availability of parking throughout the controlled area. Also important is creating successful incentives/responsibilities for effective enforcement. Some Swiss local governments are now even negotiating with the owners of buildings in some locations to reduce capacity and introduce charges for off-street parking.

Intelligent management of traffic lights is another important tool. Many cities are introducing systems that give buses and trams priority at intersections with lights that recognise them. Traffic lights can also be programmed and street layouts designed to discourage access to sensitive areas and direct flows in optimal patterns for managing congestion and pollution. Intelligent signs warning drivers of congestion and proposing alternative routes can be a useful addition. And electronic signs at bus stops indicating time of arrival of the next bus can have a major impact in improving quality of service and attracting customers. Many cities use elements of such "intelligent" traffic management. Turin, for example, has introduced a highly effective set of measures. Initiatives of this kind have been launched by a significant number of European cities, whilst others intend to develop similar systems in the future.

3.7 Road and congestion pricing

No European city has yet introduced road pricing to manage urban traffic. London is perhaps closest to adopting a scheme for a limited number of central districts, although the main congestion problems are in the inner and outer suburbs, radial access roads and circular trunk roads. The Dutch government has been developing plans for urban/interurban road pricing for a number of years. There have been difficulties in gaining acceptance by local authorities, but progress has been made in achieving more widespread political acceptance by tying tolling or more generalised road pricing to financing local transport investments. Earmarking revenues to the funding of local transport investments also stimulated interest in road pricing in several provincial cities in the UK, but subsequent allocation of central government funds to such investments has somewhat reduced the incentive.

Norway uses cordon charging on urban roads to raise resources for heavy road investments. These tolls have recently been differentiated to manage peak traffic. More widespread congestion charging systems are under consideration and would replace existing cordon tolls. Italy has adopted a legal framework for introducing electronic control of access to town centres and several cities have begun to develop cordon-pricing systems. Implementation has been delayed while the outcome of legal challenges to their introduction is resolved. Technically, systems in Rome and Bologna are ready for operation.

3.8 Climate change policies

Few countries have addressed the climate change issue so far. The United Kingdom did introduce a "fuel price escalator" in the 1990s, which increased the real price of petrol and diesel substantially in real terms, but ended in 2000 in the face of protests over high fuel prices. As the escalator ended, complementary incentives for more fuel-efficient cars were introduced by differentiating vehicle excise duty - first according to engine capacity, and subsequently according to CO2 emissions.

The lack of focus on CO2 emissions at the urban level may reflect a perception that climate change is a national, rather than local issue. The fact that measures taken to address urban problems - including many air pollution, congestion and traffic management measures, along with those that influence driving style and vehicle maintenance - also have an important impact on CO2 emissions, does not yet appear to have been assimilated. There is clearly a role for climate change programmes to help shape urban transport policies - or perhaps conversely - for national programmes to take fuller account of the actions taken at the local level in urban areas.

3.9 Local government priorities

The principal preoccupation of European local authorities in the field of sustainable urban travel is preventing pollution and environmental degradation. A large number of cities have taken measures in this area during the 1990s. Promoting public transport and reducing car traffic are the next key policy elements throughout Europe. Traffic management, better planning, management of sprawl, mobility management and development of road infrastructure follow as issues of priority, although a step behind the first three issues. Promoting cycling and walking figure quite weakly in the statistics, and managing parking hardly at all. One priority that stands out in CEE countries is the creation of urban green space and greenbelts.

4. CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTING SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT POLICIES

It is clear from the previous chapter that countries are making progress in developing policy schemes to confront congestion, urban sprawl and in tackling the environmental problems associated with unsustainable urban travel patterns. However the trends revealed in chapter 2 show that serious difficulties persist in putting these policy plans to work and in seeing the impact of policy actions reflected in the data. This chapter highlights some of the main challenges to the implementation of sustainable urban travel policies.

Implementation problems are not the same, nor are they experienced in the same way in all countries. Particular economic and political structures, as well as region-specific social and cultural factors, can engender particular implementation problems. While many difficulties in implementing policy strategies are shared throughout European cities and regions - opposition to pricing measures and wavering political will, for example, are common implementation barriers in many regions - some implementation problems are experienced more acutely in certain countries and regions. Central and Eastern European countries, for example, are encountering a variety of institutional barriers involving incomplete or in some cases excessive decentralisation of institutional powers defined under years of central planning. These institutional weaknesses are part of the reason CEE countries are having such a difficult time tackling high growth in car use and congestion and improving their public transport systems. These problems are in no way exclusive to those regions; they are, however, characteristic of their experience at this time.

Similarly, the size and economic configuration of cities and urban areas have a lot to do with how policy strategies are designed and implemented. Finland, for example, is a large country with a relatively small, dispersed population. There are few large urban areas and cities and towns are too small for comprehensive public transport systems. The Finnish “profile”, however, comes in contrast to that for instance, of the Netherlands: a small, densely populated country with a large urban “megalopolis” in its western half, and a highly developed urban and interurban public transport system. Dutch urban travel and land use strategies, therefore, will necessarily be configured, and implemented differently from those in Finland. This perhaps bears mention when examining how and why certain policies are/are not implemented in different urban areas and countries.

Part of the complexity involved in implementing strategies seems to stem from difficulty in getting consensus on what the particular problems are. There is considerable debate, for example, as to what an acceptable level of congestion is and therefore how hard to squeeze private car use in and around cities. Similarly, there is no clear agreement on the benefits and disadvantages of sprawl. While it is apparent from recent trends that traffic problems are most acute at this time outside of city centres (policy seems to be tackling congestion in city centres relatively effectively in most countries), the extent to which growth on the urban fringe should or should not be permitted is a source of debate.

There is relative agreement, however, on what a sustainable urban travel strategy does involve: maximising public transport use, managing use of private vehicles in urban areas by means of integrated traffic and mobility management, minimising sprawl through integration of land use and transport planning. The environmental by-product of these initiatives is better air quality, a reduction in fuel and CO2 emissions, and less noise nuisance.

With these objectives in mind, the first real barrier to implementation of sustainable urban travel policy packages may be getting some degree of consensus among policy-makers, the public, and other stakeholders in the transport system as to what is unsustainable about the system and what to do about it. Pro-active, consistent and well-managed involvement of all actors in the urban travel system - governmental and non-governmental, including partnerships with private and other public organisations - is proving to be an essential element in understanding what the problems are and in defining effective implementable policy solutions. There are exemplary best practice cases of consensus-building exercises. The Netherlands, for example, have for many years used a comprehensive, integrated planning and consultation procedure for developing framework strategies for transport, environment and land use that involves all levels and sectors of government.

A well thought-out strategy does not guarantee that it will be implemented, however. Part of the reason for this may be that factors involved in implementation - be they institutional, financial, or political in nature - are often not adequately considered when the strategies are defined. In this way, implementation problems are really a reflection of inadequate policy-making.

4.1 National policy framework

There is a need for a flexible, supportive national policy framework for land use and urban travel. In many European countries, however, central government has little to do with urban travel issues which are the exclusive jurisdiction of municipal or regional authorities. Urban travel policies indeed are, by their nature, local. And as suggested earlier, they must be tailored to fit the “profile” and context of the particular urban area. Moreover, they are, as a result, generally best implemented at the local and regional levels. However, the long-term impact and effectiveness of policies and measures implemented on a local and regional level - for example initiatives for limiting development of large commercial retail centres on the urban periphery or development of greenbelt zones, improvements to local public transport, or pricing measures to manage car use such as congestion pricing - can be compromised, if on a national level, the policy framework for national spatial planning, national financing and investment and pricing schemes do not accommodate and support these local policy initiatives.

A national policy framework for urban land-use and travel policy-making can also establish links between national objectives for transport, environment and health and those in regional and municipal areas. In so doing, the ways in which urban policies for spatial and transport planning contribute to, for example, the attainment of national policy objectives dealing with greenhouse gases and climate change policy, acid rain, and land fragmentation, among others, become more clear.

4.2 Policy integration and co-ordination

Sustainability requires that policy-making for urban travel be viewed in a holistic sense: that planning for transport, land-use and the environment no longer be undertaken in isolation one from the other; that policies targeting particular transport system elements and modes be considered as an ensemble, their relative impacts determining the “right” policy combination for the sustainable policy package.

Without adequate policy co-ordination, the effectiveness of the whole package of measures and their objectives is compromised. A combined “push-pull” policy strategy is needed to dissuade or “push” individual travellers from excessive car use through parking management measures and fuel or congestion pricing, for example, and attract or “pull” them to other travel means via measures for a safe and efficient public transport system, improving conditions for walking and cycling and limiting or abolishing car use in sections of the city centre. The “pull” measures such as improvements to public transport alone generally do not bring about the congestion reduction sought, although some countries and cities continue to hope for the contrary. An accompanying restraint mechanism on private car use is usually necessary to bring about the shifts in modal share that are desired.

The kind of policy co-ordination just described is subject to a number of implementation barriers, more or less formidable depending on the country’s institutional framework and policy-making structure. Policy integration and co-ordination requires a certain transparency in policy-making, allowing the objectives of the urban travel system to be evaluated as an ensemble. It necessitates an objective view of what the problems are and how they relate to each other; and an understanding of the impacts of different types of policy tools (e.g., pricing, regulatory, voluntary) and their potential for effectiveness when implemented together. It also requires unwithering political commitment to ensure that the less-popular - but nonetheless essential - parts of the policy package (often the pricing instruments) are implemented alongside the more politically palatable policy elements (e.g., public transport enhancement, improvements to walking and cycling, etc.). For implementation to happen, resources - financial and otherwise - must be identified and committed with the whole package of measures in mind. This is one of the reasons why some degree of agreement on the objectives at the outset seems essential.

4.3 Co-operation among different branches and levels of government

One of the biggest challenges to implementing sustainable urban travel strategies is that of overcoming institutional and organisational barriers. Co-ordination and co-operation among different branches and levels of government, as well as efficient consultation and communication between government and the public can determine if policies are implemented or not. This co-operation is essential to ensure that packages of complementary policies designed to promote sustainability - rather than “isolated measures” - are implemented.

Many countries still lack an institutional framework that allows the development and implementation of comprehensive, integrated plans addressing all related aspects of urban travel (spatial planning, public transport, traffic, parking, etc.) As a result, unclear and/or inconsistent messages from central government due to lack of co-operation among different ministerial branches (e.g. environment, transport, land use, finance) are often sent to local areas regarding policy priorities and procedures.

Part of the difficulty is that planning takes place at different levels of government depending on the sector, so co-ordination can be complex. For example, transport planning involving urban areas is undertaken at local, regional and national levels (depending on the type of project or investment), while urban land-use planning remains to a large extent a local issue, although there is growing recognition that strategic spatial planning must occur at a regional/national level.

New organisational arrangements may be required to facilitate communication and co-ordination among transport, land-use and environment planners and practitioners. The UK has, for example, taken the step to integrate the government institutions responsible for environment, transport and spatial planning into a single organisation, the Department of Environment Transport and the Regions. Likewise, Switzerland has created the Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications including the Federal Office for Spatial Development, the Federal Office of Transport and others.

In a number of countries, notably (but not exclusively) in Central and Eastern Europe, decision-making power for urban travel has been transferred from central government to regional and local levels of government, often without corresponding control over the sources of financing. As a result, some national governments have stepped away from responsibility for urban transport problems, often citing regulatory reform brought about by the transition process, while local and regional governments are actually unable to assume full responsibility for the problems because financial sources available are too limited.

The virtually complete withdrawal of national responsibility for urban transport has taken a severe toll on urban transport systems in a number of these countries. In both Poland and Hungary, for example, since the transition period began, the policy vacuum on a national level has seriously compromised efforts to maintain and enhance urban public transport systems and roads. With no legal/regulatory provisions for national support of local transport projects (except for a few large urban public transport projects) and insufficient local capacity to raise funds to compensate for the loss of national subsidies and investments, urban public transport systems have been fighting a losing battle to ever-increasing car use in urban areas.

While an institutional problem, decentralisation usually entails further reform to fiscal and regulatory structures as well. So it is not a simple situation to remedy. On the other hand, it is a fundamental barrier to implementation of the major improvements needed in urban travel in these countries. Initiatives are underway in both of the countries cited earlier to re-define a constructive role for national government in urban transport.

On the other hand, incomplete decentralisation can also take the form of an excessive and often counter-productive involvement of central government in local transport areas that are most efficiently overseen and implemented by local authorities, e.g., local parking policy and walking and cycling policy or in public transport operations.

National government support to urban public transport companies, for example, via high operational subsidies can serve as a disincentive to cost efficiency in public transport operations. Further, central government imposition of fare price ceilings without commensurate compensation to public transport organisations (especially in CEE countries) can also aggravate often-desperate financing difficulties.

Whereas central government has a clear role to play in setting an overall policy framework, as mentioned earlier, definition of specific policies and measures on a municipal level is often better left to the local and regional authorities, who are well-placed to take advantage of the greater opportunity and scope for local initiative. In some countries, responsibilities for policy-making are defined and attributed from the “bottom-up”, i.e. based on local and regional decision-making. In Switzerland, for example, institutional roles and powers have traditionally been attributed from the “bottom-up”, the lower levels of government allocating specific power to the national level.

On a local or regional level, lack of a co-ordinated planning process for all transport (road and public transport), land use, and environmental considerations can lead to a mode- and sector-segmented approach to policy-making, preventing the development and implementation of comprehensive, integrated plans addressing all related aspects of urban travel.

In addition, lack of co-ordination on urban travel and land-use policy among constituent municipalities in a metropolitan area can lead to serious organisational problems and inefficiencies in, for example, provision of public transport services. Parking policy is another area in which lack of co-operation among local governments in a given urban region can lead to competition for business, which can in some cases engender economic losses to areas implementing high parking fees in an effort to discourage private vehicle use.

Creation of a single entity may go a long way to furthering institutional co-operation, not only among planning agencies, but also with other municipal institutions such as local police for enforcement of, for example, parking and traffic policies. A number of urban areas around Europe are looking to new co-ordinated structures for solutions to tackle their travel problems, among them Dublin.

4.4 Winning support from the public

Winning support for sustainable urban travel policies from the public - including, lobby and interest groups, the press, and individual travellers - is often a complex and politically delicate undertaking. Poor understanding of the rationale behind, or benefits of certain measures can engender resistance from these segments of the public. This is often due to inadequate communication of policy strategies and insufficient or inefficient public involvement.

The variety of points of view represented in this diverse and divergent constituency means that communication of the objectives behind the policies, as well as explanation of the strategies themselves can sometimes take a long time and involve considerable resource expense.

Involving these groups in the various stages of problem and strategy definition as well as during the policy implementation phase can both facilitate, and in many cases, complicate implementation, the latter particularly when restraint measures such as pricing mechanisms are involved. It is clear, however, that the large body of citizens and businesses affected by the policies must be brought into the policy planning and implementation process in an effective way if implementation stands a chance of actually happening.

Required in many countries for policy development and project implementation, public involvement can, if carried out effectively, help identify the right urban travel and land use policy choices for a local area. Indeed, by giving voice early on to the concerns of citizens and businesses subject to the impacts of a policy, and by ensuring that public consultation takes place in a transparent and well-conceived framework, implementation of urban travel and land use policy packages can, in fact, be facilitated.

Switzerland, among other countries, has a long tradition of public consultation and stakeholder involvement that goes from the problem identification and objective-setting stages, through strategy definition and policy implementation. This outward-reaching, inclusive approach to policy-making and implementation has enabled the resolution of conflicts - often based on natural differences in perspective among diverse stakeholders in the urban travel system - that otherwise would have crippled possibilities for policy implementation.

Public-private partnerships to co-ordinate land-use and transport planning that involve planning agencies, merchants, employers and commercial and residential land developers, can provide an efficient and long-term vehicle for successful policy implementation. These “partners” to government need to have “bought into” the policy objectives early on, however, in order for them to recognise themselves as beneficiaries of the results. Partnerships such as these are proving effective in many urban areas in countries such as Switzerland, France and Poland.

The importance of effective and consistent information on and communication of sustainable travel policies should not be underestimated as it often is by policy-makers. Changing travel patterns and behaviour - e.g. convincing private vehicle users to use public transport - is difficult under the best circumstances, that is to say, in countries where there is a strong tradition of public transport use. It is even more difficult if the public - the clients of the transport system - are left in the dark about the objectives behind the policies and the benefits sought. Working with the transport system stakeholders and in the context of partnerships, creative solutions can be found for communicating the benefits of sustainable urban travel strategies.

4.5 Legal or regulatory framework

Without clearly defined legal and regulatory rules and procedures, successful integration of land-use and transport policies, for example, or effective involvement of private entities in public transport services is not possible. Sustainable urban travel strategies that propose policy actions such as these may require some degree of national regulatory reform or further legislation.

Clear objectives and procedures regarding public service obligations and competitive tendering are indispensable for successful implementation of schemes involving private sector participation in public transport provision. Many countries are pursuing these avenues in search of greater efficiency and higher quality in public transport services and operations. Difficulties have arisen when the legal framework does not clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the respective public and private sector entities. The European Union is currently reviewing legislation on public tendering and contracting which should provide some guidance on these issues.

Initiatives to restrain growth in car use, manage demand for travel, and encourage walking and cycling should also be supported and encouraged by the regulatory and legal framework. In addition to economic incentives to reduce car use such as road and congestion pricing and fuel taxation, which need to be implemented in an economy-wide context to avoid distortions, other transport demand management tools such as car sharing schemes, employer mobility plans, and telecommuting need the support of national law and regulation to be effectively implemented on a local level. These policy tools entail, among others, private sector involvement, and social and labour policy in addition to transport policy, so national co-ordination is essential.

The regulatory framework should also embody technical standards for vehicles and fuels and
provide for the rigorous monitoring of their implementation in the public and private fleets. Likewise air quality, noise and other environmental targets should be fully adopted in transport and land-use policy, and monitored.

A solid national legal and regulatory structure should, however, be flexible and encourage municipalities and regions to find innovative solutions to their particular urban travel problems. Legal and juridical limitations on a national level may require specific enabling legislation, as is the case in some highly centralised systems, in which power can be delegated to lower levels of government only in this way. Areas in which flexibility for local or regional initiative is appropriate (and necessary) should be defined (e.g., parking policy, some local road/congestion pricing schemes) and accommodated in the regulatory framework.

4.6 Pricing and fiscal framework

Closely related to the previous barriers is the lack of a comprehensive pricing and fiscal structure that sends the right messages to decision-makers - individuals and firms - about where they locate and how they travel or promote travel in and around cities.

Lack of a co-ordinated approach to fiscal and pricing policy for land use (real estate) and transport markets - across sectors and levels of government - can, for instance, encourage interjurisdictional competition among towns and cities for tax base and employment, and thereby hinder attempts to reduce or prevent commercial, retail and residential development on the urban periphery.

Additionally, in some countries, particular fiscal policies for real estate and housing can, in certain circumstances, implicitly encourage individuals to live outside of urban areas, thereby conflicting with strategies to reduce congestion and sprawl.

An example of this involves mortgage interest tax deductions. In simplified terms, these deductions, while encouraging individuals to become owners of their residences, may in doing so encourage them to locate in larger, single-family homes on the urban periphery, which in some markets are considered to hold their property value better than smaller residences in multi-unit buildings in the urban centre. In this way, the tax deduction may actually function as a catalyst for urban sprawl. The same distortion can apply to tax deductions on building depreciation for property owners, which can engender the same effects on urban sprawl.

Another distortion, perhaps more common to some European countries, involves tax deductions for commuting costs, which subsidises employees who live far from their place of work.

These examples show how land use and transport pricing and fiscal policies can have perverse effects when they encounter each other. They illustrate the need for a holistic view of policies in both sectors, to discern areas where measures reinforce incentives for sustainable decision-making, and where policies collide, engendering undesired decisions.

Public transport financing

How to finance improvements to public transport is a key preoccupation of governments at national, regional and local levels, and a major factor in implementation of a national strategy for sustainable urban travel. While there is no one model on how to do this, determining how to finance necessary capital expenditure and operations, and from which sources (e.g. national, regional or local government funds, private enterprise, the user) is a common problem in most countries.

The “user pays” principle is widely accepted by many policy-makers and operators (not surprisingly less so by “users”) as a basis for covering the costs of public transport operations, and under certain circumstances, capital costs. Actually balancing financing needs, however, with what the “user” can or will pay, along with public funding and, in some cases private sources of financing, is a frequently cited difficulty in implementing public transport enhancement schemes.

Central government’s involvement in local and regional public transport is a key factor in how these schemes are implemented. National participation, for example, in the coverage of not only capital costs, but also operational costs for local public transport may, as mentioned earlier, provide in certain cases an incentive to public transport operators in terms of revenue-generation, but perhaps less of an impetus for cost efficiency.

In addition, public service obligations, i.e. reduced fares and other concessions as part of a social policy, need to be carefully examined in order to avoid distortions in competition and economic prejudice to public transport organisations.

Taking a wider view of the “user” to include not only clients of the public transport system but also those using other aspects of the urban mobility system may bear some consideration. An “integrated pricing approach”, whereby resources from other parts of the system (e.g. road user charges, integrated public transport fares, parking charges, environmental protection funds) could be earmarked for public transport financing may offer some solutions to funding problems.

Other sources of public transport financing via direct and indirect taxation (e.g. fuel taxation, tax on businesses) need to be carefully studied to ensure that there are no economic distortions, and that they are equitable and socially justifiable.

4.7 Financing and investment flows

Poorly channelled financial streams can frustrate implementation of policies designed to improve sustainability in urban travel. This problem is linked to both the institutional and the legislative/regulatory framework and the fiscal structure discussed earlier. It is also intrinsically tied to strategic planning for sustainable urban travel on national, regional and local levels of government.

Examples of this include directing revenues from pricing schemes such as road or congestion pricing, parking, etc. away from the jurisdiction in which they are applied, thereby confusing public understanding of the reasons for the measure and frustrating incentives for reducing car use. Also, unbalanced allocation of funding (investments or other) among different travel modes - often due to poor co-ordination among mode-specific planning agencies - can create inefficiencies in the performance of the urban transport system. And central government investment and financing - often focused in capital cities - is sometimes carried out to the detriment of funding needs in secondary and tertiary cities. It is, to a certain extent logical that national funds are mostly directed to capitals given the strategic importance of these cities. Indeed, national government investment in and subsidies to urban and regional rail systems - primarily found in very large or capital cities - means that there can be a de facto higher level of national funding in these urban areas. However, excessive concentration of these central government funds in capital cities can engender inefficiencies in the use of these resources and opportunity costs for improvements in other important urban areas.

4.8 Analytical obstacles

The pursuit of sustainability in urban areas has caused policy analysis to become more complicated. As a result, decision-making based on the analysis has become more complex as well. Widely used analytical tools and procedures designed to assess infrastructure investments and other policy actions in urban areas are now being used to take into consideration a variety of externalities such as environmental impacts, urban sprawl and social and economic factors linked to urban growth. These methodologies, such as cost-benefit and multi-criteria analysis, however, appear inadequate in their current form to capture the long-term, cross-sectoral policy priorities for cities that are articulated in the principles of sustainability.

An example of this involves analysis regarding urban sprawl. Assumptions in methodologies used for infrastructure investments in urban areas, particularly concerning the benefits of time savings, may sometimes house a positive bias toward urban sprawl. Road infrastructure designed to increase the average speed of trips may not, in fact, reduce time of travel as perhaps supported by analysis, but instead - given assumptions in travel time budget - contribute to urban sprawl by encouraging locations further outside of the city.

Moreover, these analytical tools have difficulty measuring the impacts of integrated policy packages. Weaknesses in these methodologies should not, however, overshadow appreciation of their ability to produce analysis that gives “right” answers with regard to sustainable development.

Urban travel and land use data are generally insufficient in both quantity and quality, and are often not available in a useful form. This is a key impediment to understanding trends in urban travel patterns and the forces behind the trends. Several factors are no doubt involved; among them: data collection methods are often inconsistent within and among cities; measurements and definitions are divergent from one city to the next and often do not fit those requested in statistical inquiries; and in some countries, private public transport operators are not communicating key public transport traffic trends citing privacy rights. The result is that opportunities for monitoring the impacts of policies based on transport and land use statistics are seriously compromised and comparative exercises such as benchmarking virtually impossible.

4.9 Political commitment

Last in this list of key implementation barriers, but in no way of least importance, is the fatal
blow that faltering political commitment can cast on policy strategies designed to improve sustainability in urban travel.

Fear of political repercussions often leads political authorities to commit to only those parts of the policy package that are “politically palatable” - those that pose little political risk. These may include “enhancement” policies such as those for public transport or walking and cycling infrastructure, as opposed to more politically hazardous measures such as pricing and fiscal mechanisms.

Often cited as an example of waning political fortitude is the lack of commitment to land-use restrictions, such as when large commercial developers wanting to locate in peripheral greenbelt areas propose employment opportunities and other benefits (e.g. tax revenue) to often resource-needy municipalities. Once granted, a relaxation of development restrictions quickly becomes standard procedure and marks the end of effective greenbelt policy.

Commitments made on a national or international level (e.g. relative to environmental targets, national mobility objectives) that do not take into consideration actual possibilities for implementation in regions and cities are difficult to meet and often dropped at some point.

Adequate consultation and consensus among the concerned government branches on policies
such as fuel taxation, which involves fiscal, energy, transport and environmental policy, is essential. Without long-term, inter-sectoral commitment to these difficult fiscal measures, they may not withstand pressure during periods of short-term “duress”; a case in point is the September 2000 fuel price “crisis”, when fuel taxation measures in a number of European countries did not withstand the pressure of fluctuations in the market price of oil.

Commitment to the whole package of policies and measures for urban travel - not just those that are less politically risky - is what will ultimately bring about the desired steps toward environmentally, economic, and socially sustainable urban travel.

5. CONCLUSIONS

With nearly three-quarters of the population in Europe living in urban areas, the structure and impacts of urban travel and land-use are of concern to virtually all sectors of economic activity, all levels of government, and not the least, individual travellers themselves. Indeed, evidence from various studies clearly demonstrate that urban travel and land use problems are not just urban problems: their economic, social and environmental impacts extend well beyond the geographic jurisdictions of cities and towns to regions and to countries as a whole. The policies designed to shape travel and land use patterns to maximise the benefits of transport while minimising their negative impacts likewise go beyond the policy portfolio of local governments to that of regions and national governments as well.

Given the broad spectrum of economic sectors and actors potentially impacted by urban travel and land use activity, a package of complementary policy instruments needs to be developed that provides clear and well-targeted incentives to reduce the impacts of urban travel and land use activities. This involves better integration of land-use and transport planning - both on a strategic national level, and on regional and local levels. It involves finding ways to manage growth in car use - veritably skyrocketing in many urban areas throughout Europe - and ensuring that alternative modes of travel to the car - that is to say, public transport, walking and cycling - are promoted so that there are alternatives available to the individual traveller. Fiscal and pricing instruments, legal and regulatory tools, currently available technology, and public information are some of the main policy tools available.

As described above, this inherently multi-sectoral, integrated approach is certainly easier discussed, than implemented. The complexities involved in actually implementing integrated policy strategies for sustainable travel - be they institutional, legal, regulatory, or fiscal in nature - can be formidable. Many European countries, however, are working to identify how to better structure their policy-making frameworks so that better integration of policies - brought about by improved upstream co-operation among institutions and sectors, - can happen. In the meantime, implementing tried and tested best practice policies can be a step in the right direction.

Though government action in isolation is decidedly not enough to bring about the kinds of changes needed for sustainability in cities, a policy framework that embodies clear long-term objectives for urban travel - defined in concert with public and private stakeholders - can provide the essential parameters for implementation of integrated sustainable urban travel policies. In order for co-ordinated action to happen, however, there must be solid long-term political commitment. And government on all levels must continue to work with political actors to see that this particular implementation challenge is met.