A Strategic Knowledge and Research Agenda on
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Urban
Accessibility, connectivity
A Strategic Knowledge and Research Agenda on
Sustainable Urban Mobility
European Metropolitan network Institute
Laan van N.O. Indië 300
2593 CE The Hague
Postbus 90750
2509 LT The Hague
Phone +31(0)70 344 09 66
Fax +31(0)70 344 09 67
Email info@emi-network.eu
Website www.emi-network.eu
The responsibility for the contents of this
report lies with European Metropolitan
network Institute and the cooperating urban
practitioners. Quoting is permitted only
when the source is clearly mentioned. No
part of this publication may be copied and/
or published in any form or by any means, or
stored in a retrieval system, without the prior
written permission of EMI.
Sustainable Urban Mobility
4
Content
Executive summary 7
‘Sustainable Urban Mobility’
1 Introduction
11
1.1 Urban mobility in Europe: need for research 11
1.2 Goal and approach of a Knowledge and Research Agenda on
‘Sustainable Urban Mobility’ 12
1.3 Theoretical Framework
13
1.4 Outline Strategic Knowledge and Research Agenda Part I & II 17
2 EU and city policy practice
19
2.1Introduction
19
2.2 EU Policy Context on Sustainable Urban Mobility 19
2.3 City policy context Sustainable Urban Mobility 22
3 Sustainable Urban Transport Research: a State of the Art Review
29
3.1 Introduction – the evolving research agenda of
sustainable urban transport
29
3.2 Identifying key research themes 30
3.3 ICT and vehicle technology 34
3.4 Urban space and scale 36
3.5 Lifestyle and behaviour 40
3.6 Regulation and pricing 42
5
Sustainable Urban Mobility
3.7 Governance 44
3.8Conclusions
45
4 Synthesis 49
4.1 Synthesis Introduction
49
4.2 Synthesis State of the Art policy practice and research
50
4.3 Research questions and needs from practice and research
52
4.4 Analysis 56
4.5 Knowledge and Research Agenda: next steps
64
Bibliography Sustainable Urban Mobility
75
Sustainable Urban Mobility
6
Executive summary EMI’s Knowledge and
Research Agenda ‘Sustainable Urban Mobility’
In this EMI Knowledge and Research Agenda,
the gap between research and practice in
the field of urban mobility will be bridged by
looking at research needs from a practical
(urban) point of view. Renowned academic
authors wrote position papers on the main
themes (see below) and policy documents of
many European cities have been analysed.
Most importantly, European and city policymakers have been asked what kind of
research they need in their (long-term) policy
implementation. This process has led to an
agenda consisting of a state of the art in both
academic research and policy practice and
future research needs on sustainable urban
mobility, based on the needs in actual city
practice in Europe.
The Agenda focuses on five main themes.
These themes have been selected after an
analysis of both research and practice, a
workshop and continuous consultation with
city practitioners and academic experts. On
all main themes the state of the art of both
research and practice are combined and
research needs for the future are indicated.
Here you find the final conclusions per theme:
The first theme ‘urban space and scale’ relates
to all measures and interventions that
concern the physical design of a city. In city
practice there is much belief that measures
and interventions in land use planning have
a causal relationship with mobility reduction,
energy efficiency and less car use. However,
this causal effect is questioned by academic
research, which also has a more spatial than
infrastructural focus in this theme. Research
firmly connecting land use planning and
mobility behaviour is especially needed on
land use planning and its impact on mobility,
urban economy and urban sprawl.
Last year, the European Commission
proposed a ‘new type of mobility’ in
European cities in the Working Document
accompanying the White Paper on the Future
of Transport (2011): “the necessary transition
from a primarily car-based personal mobility in
cities to a mobility based on walking, cycling,
high quality public transport and less-used
cleaner passenger vehicles is the central strategic
challenge for cities in the decades to come”. This
is very similar to the long-term visions and
ambitions (e.g. 2040/2050) of European cities
and metropolitan areas. Cities know that
they must change their current mobility
systems, but they struggle how effective
action is undertaken to remedy the current
situation. Academic research also points to
this problem, but the findings of research are
until now insufficient to lead cities to more
sustainable mobility systems. That is why
EMI has created a research-based, practiceled Knowledge and Research Agenda on
sustainable urban mobility.
The second theme ‘regulation and pricing’ is
concerned with the powerful tools of cities
to reduce unwanted modes of transport and
stimulate the use of alternative mobility.
Interestingly, a large amount of research
is devoted to the issue of pricing, whilst at
the same time, political reluctance in many
cities prevents the implementation of pricing
schemes. Moreover, an issue of governance
arises; on what scale should regulation
and pricing schemes be decided on? Cities
instead seem more focused on parking
policies. Future research is necessary in the
following areas: the combination of pricing
and regulation, urban parking policies and
solutions how to increase acceptance of
pricing schemes by citizens (and politicians).
7
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Shutterstock 124255
Regarding the third theme, ‘lifestyle and
behaviour’, one should think of any policy
with an aim to obtain a behavioural change
towards more sustainable transport modes.
This is a very popular policy tool as it is
relatively cheap and visible. Many cities do
indicate their need of research on citizen
mentality and behavioural change. Research
needs in this field are: studies on the longterm effectiveness of these measures, on
transferability of practice from one place to
another and more extensive evaluation of
these measures.
practice; there is lack of specific knowledge/
expertise in cities and it is questionable
whether cities can (or even should) stay up to
date with current innovations and implement
these into sustainable urban mobility policy.
Research needs to be focused on ‘futureproof’ technologies, rebound effects of ICT
innovation on mobility and on facilitating
the full inclusion and implementation of ITS
& Technology in sustainable urban mobility
policy.
Although the fifth and overarching theme
of ‘governance’ proved to be a peculiar
and less specified theme, local decisionmakers consider it very important. Given
the many connections with the other
themes, ‘governance’ therefore is seen
as an overarching theme in this agenda.
The fourth theme ‘ITS and Technology’ is
oriented towards the question how cities
can make best use of (existing) technological
opportunities. Regarding this theme, it proves
to be difficult to bring together research and
Sustainable Urban Mobility
8
The question of how to integrate policies
and come up with packages of measures
is interesting for both research and
practice fields. Especially from a research
perspective, questions focused on what way
benchmarking and ‘best practices’ actually
help cities in their implementation. More
practice-oriented research is necessary on:
the integrated approach, policy packaging,
the coherence between (long-term) ambitions
and (short-term) implementation, the right
combination of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ policy
measures and the transferability of urban
mobility policy.
(fundamental, academic) research needs and
questions have been asked or answered. A
larger focus on practice-oriented research and
transferability on these main themes could
really help more European cities to deliver
sustainable urban mobility systems.
EMI asks all the cities, regions, universities,
research institutes and other stakeholders
to support this quest for integrated and
multidisciplinary research. Therefore, we
kindly invite all stakeholders involved
to give their views and support and
(potentially)join the consortium for (a
multiannual programme for) future
applied research in the field of sustainable
urban mobility based on the research
needs of European cities and metropolitan
areas.
This EMI Knowledge and Research Agenda
is the result of a year-long investigation into
the future research needs on sustainable
urban mobility. It has been remarkable to
see how urban research and urban practice
differ in their focus. An approach based on
collaboration between research and practice,
focused on the actual problems in cities
(‘research-based, practice-led’) can help
cities in their transition to more sustainable
mobility systems.
Please contact us via info@emi-network.eu
The (fundamental) practice-oriented research
needs, as drawn up in this report, can be
addressed in a new European knowledge
and research project in close collaboration
between (city)policy-makers and academic
researchers in a city-research consortium
for sustainable urban mobility. This is all the
more necessary as most current European
‘research’ projects in this field do have their
own ‘deliverables’ aiming to disseminate
project results. These deliverables and
showcases have proven to be very positive
for the development of plans within cities
but, at the same time however, have proven
to be very difficult to transfer. Moreover, few
9
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Sustainable Urban Mobility
10
A Strategic Knowledge and Research Agenda on
Sustainable Urban Mobility
1Introduction
1.1 Urban mobility in Europe:
need for research
that car use dominates in comparison to the
use of other modes of mobility, such as public
transport, cycling and walking. There is an
evident need for a modal shift; to shift to more
sustainable modes of transport, as well as
cleaner fuels and vehicles.
Cities, as living organisms, accommodate
high-density populations and they offer
space for activities such as living, working,
education, shopping and recreation.
Connecting these various activities spatially
allocated in the urban / metropolitan areas
creates a need for mobility of people (and
goods). Mobility supports the economic
vitality of cities and metropolitan regions,
and contributes to the social life therein.
Inhabitants of cities enjoy the socio-economic
achievements of the last decades, with
automobiles, public transport, bicycles and
the possibility of walking (routes) all available
within short reach. As a consequence of the
widespread introduction of the car since
the 1960s the daily urban systems have
been extended. Mobility in cities in 2012
means freedom of movement and choice for
individual citizens and social and economic
development for the cities as a whole.
According to recent research it is hard to
beat walking and cycling when it comes
to environmental, economic and social
sustainability.1 Therefore, a modal shift
necessarily involves measures directed
at promoting walking, cycling and the
use of public transport, as well as other
supportive measures (incentives) to promote
intermodality between these different modes.
This is parallel to the recent call of European
Commission for a new type of mobility, which
involves
a necessary transition from a primarily car based
personal mobility in cities to a mobility based on
walking and cycling, high quality public transport
and less-used and cleaner passenger vehicles.2
Next to its primarily positive connotations,
urban mobility – especially based on
private motorised transport - has negative
externalities for cities and urban areas.
Among the various modes for passenger
transport, personal motorised vehicles,
in particular cars, are a major generator
of various negative externalities such as
pollutant emissions, traffic accidents and
congestion. Furthermore, individualised
vehicles claim an increasing amount of space,
which impedes the quality of life in cities. By
examining the share of different transport
modes in (urban) Europe, it becomes clear
Looking closely at future vision documents
of European cities and metropolitan areas,
they appear to use the same rhetoric, but
they do not seem certain about which policy/
1 John Pucher and Ralph Buehler (2010); ‘Walking and
Cycling for Healthy Cities’, Built Environment, vol.
36, no. 4, p. 391.
2
SEC (2011)391 final: ‘Commission Staff Working
Document accompanying the White Paper –
Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area:
Towards a competitive and resource efficient
transport system’, p. 89.
11
Sustainable Urban Mobility
measures they should implement in the short
and long-term to realise their ambitions on
sustainable urban mobility. For example,
which investments and policy measures to
choose in order to meet certain targets? How
to implement them? How to create synthesis
between ambitions and actual measures?
How to monitor effectiveness? What could
really help cities and urban areas in their
sustainable urban mobility goals, is urban
research that can easily be applied to urban
practice.
This Strategic Knowledge and Research
Agenda (KRA) starts from this point: There
is a need for (fundamental) research in the
field of sustainable urban mobility, which is
helpful for cities and urban areas so that they
can make their urban mobility system more
sustainable. This KRA presents the relevant
research questions in this field.
1.2 Goal and approach of a
Knowledge and Research
Agenda on ‘Sustainable Urban
Mobility’
Originally, most cities in Europe were not
built to be dependent upon car use3. By now,
people in urban areas in Europe use their car
extensively, but both in scientific research
3
Peter W G Newman and Jeffrey R Kenworthy (1996),
‘The land use-transport connection: an overview’,
Land Use Policy, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1-22.
4
Ibid, p.9, or see p. 6: “the unfettered automobile
city ‘dream’ soon became a ‘nightmare”. See
also COM(2007) 551 final: ‘Green Paper: Towards
a new culture for urban mobility’, p. 8: The main
environmental issues in towns and cities are related
to the predominance of oil as a transport fuel, which
generates CO2, air pollutant emissions and noise.
Sustainable Urban Mobility
and EU policy contexts the conviction is that
excessively automobile dependent cities will
decline in the 21st century unless they adapt
to a new urban reality.4 This ‘new urban
reality’ is most often called a ‘sustainable’
urban reality.
How do cities realise this new urban reality?
And how can academic research support
cities in realising this sustainable mobility
system? This KRA brings together urban
practice and urban research on sustainable
mobility. Although a lot of research has
been done in the field of sustainable
urban mobility, this has not been applied
(sufficiently) in practice. Moreover, many
important practical questions are not
addressed in urban research. This KRA
focuses on what knowledge European cities
and urban areas need from urban research
in order to make the mobility system in their
cities more sustainable. This report presents
the most important research needs and
questions for the near urban future, based
on the challenges in cities and urban areas
(‘research-based, practice-led’). The report
sets the agenda for cities with the ambition
to implement sustainable urban mobility
systems based on scientifically-based
knowledge and insights.
The ultimate goal of this Knowledge and
Research Agenda is to bring together the
knowledge needs from urban practice
and state of the art research in the field of
sustainable mobility, so that (fundamental)
research questions and needs that are based
on the actual problems in the urban policy
context can be drawn up. These fundamental
research questions can be addressed in
a grand future (applied) ‘meta’ research
programme based around the main themes
12
(see 1.3) and its research questions, in close
collaboration with the cities. European cities
and urban areas can then be strengthened
by means of integrated, coordinated and
overarching knowledge on sustainable
urban mobility. The production of this (new)
knowledge contributes to the creation of new
and sustainable urban mobility systems.
on walking and cycling, high quality public
transport and cleaner passenger vehicles
(which are consequently used less). This
demand-driven approach has many benefits:
the experiences of the cities and urban
regions and the accumulated knowledge of
academia have provided input in shaping our
agenda. Further, the report will contribute
to giving direction to the future of urban
mobility policy and research in Europe. A
general overview of all activities that have
been undertaken in the process of this report
can be found in the Appendix.
This report on Sustainable Urban Mobility is
a product of connecting the policy practice
of the cities and metropolitan regions to the
research conducted in the scientific world
in the field of urban mobility. Staring point
was the knowledge and research needs of
cities, and the identification of the need for
new research based on demands of cities.
This offers ‘stepping stones’ to realise the
necessary (from both research and EU
policy) transition towards a mobility based
1.3 Theoretical Framework
In virtually all mobility policies or general
strategic visions of European cities,
sustainable urban mobility is mentioned
as one of the key elements of a future –
European cities and
metropolitan regions
Figure 1 process of KRA
Policy
challenges
Policy
ambitions
Fundamental
research
questions on
sustainable
urban mobility
Results of
recent
research
Academic
position papers
on State of
the Art main
themes
urban mobility
Science
Policy priorities
in the current
policy plans
Knowledge
and
Research
Agenda
Sustainable urban mobility
13
Sustainable Urban Mobility
prosperous and liveable- city. Recurring
themes in city policies from across Europe are
cycling, priority for public transport, shared
mobility, infrastructural changes (co-existing
transport modes), integrated land-use
planning, attractive city centres, regulation
and pricing, campaigning and awareness
raising to change mobility behaviour,
clean(er) vehicles, ITS and technological
innovation. In this way European cities seem
to realise the “key lesson that no single
strategy is sufficient”.5 Cities give importance
to sustainable urban mobility and are already
forming plans to implement sustainable
urban mobility systems in the coming
decades.
However, there seems to be a discrepancy
between long-term visions or ambitions
and the implementation of concrete policy
measures. Even when specific targets are
being set (e.g. percentages of CO2 reduction
or rise in share of cycling in the modal share),
there is not much clarity on how, and through
the implementation of which measures, these
targets will be met.
5
John Pucher and Ralph Buehler (2010); ‘Walking and
Cycling for Healthy Cities’, Built Environment, vol.
36, no. 4, p. 415. See also David Banister (2008), ‘The
sustainable mobility paradigm’, Transport Policy, vol.
15, pp. 73-80.
6
David Banister (2008), ‘The sustainable mobility
paradigm’, Transport Policy, vol. 15, pp. 73-80.
7
David Banister (2005), ‘Unsustainable Transport: City
Transport in the New Century’, Routledge, London,
p. 234.
8
In research this tension between sense of
urgency on the one hand and concrete action
on the other has been identified. A leading
research article in the field of sustainable
(urban) mobility is ‘the sustainable mobility
paradigm’ written by David Banister (2008)6.
Earlier, in 2005, Banister already pointed to
the ‘schizophrenic paths’ in transport policy
as it “is clear that action is needed, but no effective
action is undertaken to remedy the current
situation”.7 According to Banister, a sustainable
mobility approach requires actions to reduce
the need to travel (less trips), to encourage
a modal shift, to reduce the trip lengths
and encourage a greater efficiency in the
(urban) transport system. As regards the
‘how’ question of a transition, the pioneering
approach was ‘information’ in its broadest
sense: awareness-raising, information
education, media and advertising.8 Lately,
other (more restrictive) measures have been
introduced to reduce car-use: so-called ‘push’
(as opposed to ‘pull’) measures. According
to Banister it is only through understanding
and acceptance by the people in cities
themselves that sustainable mobility will
succeed in playing a central role in the future
of sustainable cities.9
David Banister (2008), p. 74 citing OECD
Recent scientific articles as well as the recent
White Paper of the European Commission
point to the unavoidable necessity of a
transition towards a more sustainable urban
mobility which necessarily involves less
car use. In this transition it is not necessary
to overthrow the whole urban design and
the ‘achievements’ of earlier generations.
Therefore, the main question is a dual
question:
(Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development), 2002; ‘Global long term projections
for motor vehicle emissions MOVE II project,
Working Group on Transport, ENV/EPOC/
WPNEP/T(2002)8/REV1, Paris.
9
David Banister (2008), p. 80.
Sustainable Urban Mobility
How do actors in cities and urban areas in their
policies for sustainable urban mobility strive
for a transition towards a mobility based on
walking and cycling, high quality public transport
and cleaner passenger vehicles which are used
14
could include awareness-raising campaigns
providing information about alternatives,
training and education programmes or
assisting large companies in setting up
mobility plans. As these ‘softer’ measures
are often easier to take (in terms of support,
planning, finances and time) there are many
examples of these measures across Europe.
But which measures work best? Is there any
geographical difference?
less, while preserving the social and economic
achievements of their current mobility systems?
Within the broad frame of sustainable urban
mobility four themes can be identified: urban
space & scale, regulation & pricing, lifestyle &
behaviour and ITS & technology. Additionally, a
fifth and overarching theme can be identified:
the ‘management’ of the integrated approach:
governance. Governance will recur as an
overarching theme as it is related to all main
themes.
‘ITS & Technology’ plays an essential role in
establishing a transition towards sustainable
urban mobility. This theme partly covers
current technological innovations such
as cleaner cars and public transport. Next
to these, other developments such as
teleworking or teleshopping and providing
real-time (and/or personalised) information
for users of public transport11 are also part of
this main theme. An important question is:
How can cities best make use of the existing
technical opportunities?
The first main theme ‘urban space & scale’
relates to all measures and interventions that
concern the physical design of a city. What
is the influence of the developments of new
areas, densification of existing parts of the
city and reallocation of street spaces (e.g.
bicycle paths instead of parking spaces) on
the daily urban systems in European cities?
As physical interventions are of a permanent
character, most interventions classified
within the theme’ ‘urban space’ therefore
could be classified as ‘hard’ measures.
By ‘regulation and pricing’, the second theme,
-local- authorities have some powerful tools
to reduce unwanted modes of transport and
stimulate the use of alternative mobility.
The topic is usually politically sensitive, and
besides there is a lack of clarity on which
level these measures should best be decided
on. This is very topical as the European
Commission foresees a move towards full
application of ‘user pays’ and ‘polluter pays’
principles and private sector engagement
to eliminate distortions, including harmful
subsidies, generate revenues and ensure
financing for future transport investments.10
10 COM(2011) 144 final, European Commission; ‘White
Paper, Roadmap to a Single European Transport
Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient
transport system’, p. 10.
11 See also COM(2011) 144 final, European
Commission; ‘White Paper, Roadmap to a Single
Regarding the main theme ‘‘lifestyle &
behaviour’, one should think of any policy
aiming to obtain behavioural change towards
more sustainable transport choices. This
European Transport Area – Towards a competitive
and resource efficient transport system’, p. 27 with
specific attention for ITS and European multimodal
transport information.
15
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Table 1 Main themes ‘Sustainable Urban Mobility’: key words and subjects
Key words, themes and subjects
Urban space
& scale
Transit-oriented development, densification, mixeduse development, car-free zones, street design,
reducing (need for) vehicle travel, integrated land
use planning, influencing travel behaviour through
planning, smart growth, accessibility improvements,
option value, Smart growth, reallocation of space,
priority for public transport, cycling friendly streets,
pedestrianisation of central areas, liveability &
quality of life.
Regulation
& pricing
Pricing policies, congestion charging schemes,
internalisation of external costs, parking policies,
road pricing, polluter pays principle, cost effective
public transport, public transport pricing and
regulation, park and ride, home and low emission
zones, subsidies for cleaner/ electric vehicles, green
procurement (PT).
Lifestyle
& behaviour
Lifestyle, mobility behaviour patterns, car
dependence, time-space geography, freedom
of choice, changes in family composition and
lifestyle (that) influence travel behaviour, car-free
choosers, car sharing, awareness-raising/education/
information: is the car the best option for this trip?,
vehicle sharing, corporate mobility plans.
Its & technology
Intelligent Transport Systems, Information and
Communication Technologies, real-time passenger
information (RTPI), mobile devices, substitution
potential of ICT for travel, multimodal connectivity,
electric vehicles, shared means of transport,
adaptive traffic management, dynamic road pricing,
privacy issues, green cars, cleaner vehicles, apps
for more efficient travel, integrated (multimodal)
journey planners.
Sustainable Urban Mobility
16
Governance
Specific theme related to the other
main themes: Urban Space & Scale,
Regulation & Pricing, Lifestyle &
Behaviour and ITS & Technology.
Includes:
Binding decisions in public sphere,
arrangements, strengthening of
lower levels of self-government,
increasing diversity and asymmetry
how territories within nation state
governed, marketization, policy
integration, benchmarking, policy
indicators and best practice guides,
policy packaging, policy transfer,
policy experimentation/innovation,
visioning/envisioning.
1.4 Outline Strategic Knowledge
and Research Agenda Part I & II
section (B) of Part II, the EU policy context in
the field of sustainable urban mobility since
1995 is elaborated on. In section C (third
section) the policy measures and mobility
plans in European cities are more extensively
discussed. The last section of Part II, the
Urban Practice Guide, gives an overview of
‘city mobility practices’ across Europe in the
field of mobility, clustered by the different
themes. City practitioners were asked to
introduce their project, provide ‘do’s’ and
‘don’ts’ for other practitioners and indicate in
what way they benefited from urban research
or in what way they would benefit from
(future) urban research. The ‘city mobility
practices’ are geographically spread across
Europe, featuring some well-known examples
(e.g. London, Stockholm, Sevilla) as well as
less renowned examples (e.g. Sofia, Poznan,
Hannover).
This Strategic Knowledge and Research
Agenda on ‘Sustainable Urban Mobility’ is
comprised of two parts. This document, Part
I, summarises all separate sections of this
Agenda and concludes with the proposed
research agenda on sustainable urban
mobility. In part II one finds the individual
position papers of academics, the detailed
state of the art reports and the inspiring
urban practices of individual European cities.
After an introductory chapter Part I of the
Agenda continues with Chapter 2 on the
‘state of the art’ of the policy practice in
both EU policy and city policies. Chapter 3
outlines a ‘state of the art’ on the research
on sustainable urban mobility. Specific
attention is paid to earlier research agendas
on sustainable mobility. Finally, the synthesis
of the different themes and (fundamental)
research questions and research needs for the
future based on the actual needs of policymakers in European cities is presented in
Chapter 4.
An extensive ‘Part II’ of the Strategic
Knowledge and Research Agenda comprises
academic articles, wide-ranging policy
contexts and interesting city practices for
peer to peer learning of urban practitioners
across Europe. In the first section (A) of Part
II the academic position papers on the state
of the art of different themes are presented.
Six renowned academics have written (or
contributed to) position papers on the main
themes of this Agenda.12 Specific attention
in the position papers is paid to the link
between urban practice and urban research;
further research questions relevant for city
practice are also pointed out. In the second
12 Prof. van Wee (TU Delft, The Netherlands) and
Prof. Handy (University of California, Davis, USA)
have written a position paper on ‘urban space &
scale’, Prof. Nash (University of Leeds, UK) and Prof.
Whitelegg (John Moores University, Liverpool, UK)
on ‘regulation & pricing’, Prof. Goodwin (University
West of England, Bristol, UK) on ‘lifestyle and
behaviour’ and Dr. Šitavancová (VŠB-TU Ostrava,
Czech Republic) on ‘ITS & technology’
17
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Urb
Accessibility, connec
Sustainable Urban Mobility
18
A Strategic Knowledge and Research Agenda on
Sustainable Urban Mobility
2
EU and city policy practice
2.1Introduction
Due to time constraints and (language)
difficulties in accessing national policy
documents, the layer of national governments
does not form a separate part of the policy
practice ‘state of the art’. National positions
and ambitions are, however, reflected
through incorporating conclusions/Accords/
Declarations etc. of assemblies from the
national Ministers for urban development
and territorial cohesion and their specific
conclusions on urban mobility.
Urban mobility, and the aspired transition
towards more sustainable urban mobility
systems, is a policy field which is of relevance
to local practitioners as well as to EU policymakers and national ministers. Given the aim
to develop a Knowledge and Research agenda
based on both urban practice and research,
the policies of various levels will be reviewed
and analysed.
In this chapter, a concise state of the art of
current policy practice (and cities ambitions)
on urban mobility is presented.13 The first
part of this chapter is concerned with the
EU policy context from both the European
Commission as well as with the (informal)
meetings of national Ministers for urban
development and territorial cohesion. It
shows that (sustainable) urban mobility
is (since the mid-1990s) an increasingly
important issue on the European agenda.
This overview of urban mobility policy will
subsequently result in research needs and
questions that stem from urban practice (see
Chapter 4).
2.2 EU Policy Context on Sustainable
Urban Mobility
With regards to the EU policy context (in this
approach both the European Commission
as well as national Ministers for urban
development and territorial cohesion) ‘urban
mobility’ is placed high on the agenda. This
development already started in the mid-1990s
and was recently manifested in the landmark
document of the European Commission:
White Paper ‘Roadmap to a Single European
Transport Area – towards a competitive and
resource efficient transport system’(2011). In
this document with specific proposals on EU
action, urban mobility plays an important
role.
The second part contains the analysis of
the current –policy- practice of European
urban areas. It shows that sustainable urban
mobility (planning) is a top priority in urban
policy ambitions and plans. Despite the sense
of urgency for a transition towards more
sustainable
urban mobility, there appears to
and
mobility
be a mismatch between long-term visions
or ambitions and the actual policy measures
that are implemented. Furthermore, there
are clearly more incentives (i.e. promotion
of alternative modes of transport) than
disincentives (reduction of car use through
regulatory and fiscal measures).
ban mobility
ctivity
13 In Part II of this KRA, more elaborate chapters on
both EU policy practice and urban mobility practice
are included.
19
Sustainable Urban Mobility
In its first White Paper14 (1992) the European
Commission had as its main aim to open
up the markets: boundless and infinite
freedom of movement across EU borders.
The Commission seemed to realise quite
soon that this development could lead to
an overemphasis on individual motorised
vehicles with consequential congestion
effects in European cities and harmful
effects on environment, public health and
14 COM(92)494 final: ‘The Future Development of the
Common Transport Policy: A Global Approach to the
Construction of a Community Framework for Sustainable
Mobility - White Paper’.
15 Therefore, the Commission was one of the first
to start the discussion on road pricing and policy
options for internalising the external costs, see
COM(95)691 final: ‘Towards Fair and Efficient Pricing
road safety.15 From the mid-1990s onwards
the European Commission started its
‘sustainable urban mobility’ impulses with
its first pricing initiatives16, a particular focus
on public transport and the initiation of the
‘best-practice’17 and information exchange
approach.
The Commission became increasingly aware
that, due to the subsidiarity principle18, the
Commission did not have the possibility to
do much more in this area besides promoting
study and exchange of best practices.
However, the line of the Commission
remained clear and ambitious in the 2000s
with promotion of clean vehicles, alternative
energies, an integrated approach of town
planning and adequate public transport
provisions.19
in Transport Policy: options for Internalising the
External Costs of Transport in the European Union’
16 COM(95)691, Policy document European
Commission (1995): ‘Towards fair and efficient
pricing in transport’ .
17 These ‘best practice’ initiatives culminated in
2002 in the launch of the very successful CIVITAS
initiative for clean and better transport in urban
areas http://www.civitas-initiative.org/main.
phtml?lan=en
18 Article 5(3) TEU in which it is stated that “the Union
shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of
the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved
by the Member States, either at central level or at
regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of
the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better
achieved at Union level.”
19 COM (2001)370 final: ‘European transport policy for
The increasing importance attached to the
field of urban mobility within the European
Commission culminated in the Green Paper
‘towards a new culture for urban mobility’
in 200720 which recognised urban mobility
as an important facilitator of growth and
employment with a strong impact on
sustainable development in the EU. The
‘new urban mobility culture’ as mentioned
in the Green Paper, laid an emphasis on the
co-modality between the different modes
of collective and individual transport. The
Action Plan on Urban Mobility (2009)21
proposed more concrete actions on themes
such as ‘promoting integrated policies’,
‘focusing on citizens’ and ‘sharing experience
and knowledge’.
2010: time to decide’
20 COM(2007)551 final: ‘Green Paper: Towards a new
culture for urban mobility’
21 COM(2009)490 final: ‘Action Plan on Urban Mobility’
Sustainable Urban Mobility
At present, the 2011 White Paper ‘Roadmap to
a Single European Transport Area – towards a
competitive and resource efficient transport
20
system’22 is the main transport document in
which the European Commission sketches its
ambitious targets for the coming decades (up
to 2050), also in the field of urban mobility.
The ‘new type of mobility’ as proposed in
the accompanying working document of the
White Paper is especially interesting:
consortia of partners including research
institutes, cities, regions, technological
partners, public companies and
manufacturers altogether. All projects
had their own ‘deliverables’ with the aim
of disseminating (project) results. These
deliverables and showcases have, however,
proven difficult to transfer and not many
(fundamental) general research questions
have been asked nor answered.
“the necessary transition from a primarily car
based personal mobility in cities to a mobility
based on walking and cycling, high quality public
transport and less-used and cleaner passenger
vehicles is the central strategic challenge for cities
in the decades to come”23
Meanwhile, Ministers for urban development
and territorial cohesion also underlined the
importance of ‘sustainable communities’
in the last decade. The Bristol Accord
(2005)25 asserted that cities should be ‘well
connected’ with good transport services
and communication linking people to jobs,
schools, health and other services. These
transport facilities help people travel more
sustainably and ‘reduce their dependence’ on
cars. It also offers facilities to encourage more
safe local walking and cycling. The Bristol
Accord was the first informal ministerial
Various measures, targets and goals that
directly relate to the (necessary) modal shift
in European urban regions are underlined in
the White Paper, such as:
– A higher share of travel by collective
transport
– Road pricing and the removal of distortions
in taxation to encourage the use of public
transport
– A move towards full application of
the principles ‘user pays’ and ‘polluter
pays’ and private sector engagement to
eliminate distortions, including harmful
subsidies.
– Facilitating walking and cycling as integral
part of urban mobility and infrastructure
design
– Halve the use of ‘conventionally-fuelled’
cars in urban transport by 2030 and phase
them out in cities by 2050.
– Integrated urban mobility by establishing
procedures and financial mechanisms (e.g.
urban mobility audit)
22 COM(2011)144 final: ‘White Paper: Roadmap to
a Single European Transport Area – Towards a
competitive and resource efficient transport system’
23 SEC (2011)391 final: ‘Commission Staff Working
Document accompanying the White Paper –
Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area:
Towards a competitive and resource efficient
transport system’, p. 89.
24 For example in CIVITAS projects, see http://www.
civitas.eu/index.php?id=69 ; 2012
25 Bristol Accord, Conclusions of Ministerial Informal
Meeting on Sustainable Communities in Europe,
The funded applied European research
projects24 on sustainable urban mobility
have had some very strong and interesting
during UK Presidency, 2005. http://www.eib.org/
attachments/jessica_bristol_accord_sustainable_
communities.pdf
21
Sustainable Urban Mobility
meeting in which urban mobility played a
large(r) role.
Building on a number of previous key
documents on urban policy, the Leipzig
Charter (2007) 26on Sustainable European
Cities is a particularly important document.
The Charter defines two key objectives:
– Integrated urban development should be
applied throughout Europe
– Deprived neighbourhoods must receive
more attention within an integrated urban
development policy
The ministers emphasised in the Leipzig
Charter that ‘efficient and affordable urban
transport’, essentially public transport, should
be promoted in deprived neighbourhoods
in order to organise the same mobility and
accessibility as in other neighbourhoods.
As part of an ‘integrated approach’ the
Leipzig Charter points to an efficient and
affordable transport system by modernising
infrastructure networks and improving
energy efficiency. This can improve ‘quality
26 Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities, 24
May 2007. www.eu2007.de
27 The first cities and countries in North- West Europe
already started with (more) sustainable planning in
the 1970’s and 1980’s
28 These findings correspond with the conclusions
of ‘The State-of-the-Art of Sustainable Urban
Mobility Plans in Europe’ published by Eltis in 2011
(http://mobilityplans.eu/docs/file/eltisplus_stateof-the-art_of_sumps_in_europe_july2011.pdf.The
importance of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans is
emphasised in the European Commission’s Action
Plan on Urban Mobility (Action 1), which has led to
several European projects concerning the topic, such
of life, locational quality and the quality of
the environment’. The following informal
ministerial meetings have been built upon
the ‘cornerstones’ of the Leipzig Charter. The
‘sustainable’ focus of the ministers seems to
be more on social and environmental aspects
than on economic features, focusing instead
on accessibility in deprived neighbourhoods,
affordable public transport and energy
efficiency.
Thus, both the European Commission and the
ministers for urban development are aiming
for a transition to more sustainable urban
mobility taking into account environmental
concerns. The ‘How-question’ and the
consequences for the current social and
economic achievements are, however, not
answered or addressed in the EU policy
context. Future research that identifies this
‘How-question’ on the proposed main themes
can help the EU and the national ministers to
come up with concrete plans.
2.3 City policy context Sustainable
Urban Mobility
Despite large differences in size, geographical
location, economic development and mobility
systems between the cities in Europe,
the ambitions and visions with regard to
sustainable urban mobility are largely similar.
The starting point or the current mobility
situation of cities does, however, vary widely.
Generally speaking it can be stated that
cities in North Western Europe have begun
striving for sustainable urban mobility much
earlier27 than their counterparts in Southern
and Eastern Europe.28 Cities that have been
working on sustainable planning for a longer
time show more comprehensive policy
as Eltis, Eltis+ and Niches.
Sustainable Urban Mobility
22
Shutterstock 379057
plans regarding both urban sustainability in
general and sustainable urban mobility in
particular. There are of course exceptions to
this statement; cities in Scotland and Ireland,
for example, lag behind, while some Spanish
cities have clear proof of their successful
sustainable mobility planning.
The most important components of cities’
visions and ambitions for sustainable urban
mobility are an enhanced accessibility of
the city (thus, a solution for the current
congestion problems), a more sustainable modal
split (i.e. less cars, more use of alternative
modes of transport), green and attractive public
spaces and less pressure on the environment.
In general, cities’ future visions mention
sustainable urban mobility as one of the key
elements of a future prosperous and liveable
city. In their mobility policy plans, many
European cities identify problems in the
current mobility situation, such as decreasing
accessibility (mainly due to congestion),
dominance of cars in urban space and
decreasing quality of life for citizens. This
is seen as both an undesired and untenable
situation.
In order to reach these ambitions, various
concepts are introduced in an effort towards
more sustainable urban mobility systems.
Obviously, the concept of ‘sustainability’ is
omnipresent in current policies. The so-called
‘integrated approach’ (interpreted in various
ways) is another term that is often found
in urban mobility plans. The terms ‘Smart
City’, ‘Smart mobility’29 as well as quality of life
are also recurrent concepts when reviewing
In order to tackle these problems, urban areas
in Europe are planning and working towards
more sustainable urban mobility systems.
Regarding their approaches, one can identify
several general trends on ambitions, concepts
and policy themes.
29 The term ‘Smart mobility’ can cover many different
themes, however in practice, within urban mobility
policy the term is mainly used to depict the
technological possibilities and measures that relate
to Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS).
23
Sustainable Urban Mobility
urban mobility policies. All these concepts
mentioned above are often not defined very
precisely. The terms are used interchangeably
for several different planning practices.
This manifold use of for example the term
‘integrated approach’ raises questions,
namely; what are the requirements for
integrated planning and, even more
important, how to establish integrated
sustainable urban mobility planning?
When looking at policy and specific policy
measures from across Europe that are being
described in urban mobility plans, themes
that are recurring are cycling, priority for public
transport, shared mobility, infrastructural changes
(co-existing transport modes), integrated land-use
planning, attractive city centres, campaigning
and awareness raising to change mobility
behaviour, clean(er) vehicles, ITS and technological
innovation. These themes, defined on the basis
of policy plan analysis of numerous European
cities and urban areas, are described in
further detail in Part II of this KRA.
As regards urban mobility policy throughout
Europe, one sees many ambitious visions for
the longer term with very little connection
30 http://www.eukn.org/E_library/Economy_
Knowledge_Employment/Urban_Economy/Urban_
Economy/URBACT_Cities_facing_the_crisis_final_
publication_now_available
31 URBACT Publication: Cities facing the Crisis –
Impact and Responses, available at http://urbact.
eu/?id=1529
32 Just to name one example, the London Cross River
Tram project is on hold due to funding constraints
33 ‘Maintain commitments’: Speech Vincent Leiner,
DG MOVE on Civitas Results Workshop 13-09-2011,
Brussels
Sustainable Urban Mobility
to the more specific shorter term planning.
Targets for the long term are set and specified
(such as ‘cycling forms 10% of the modal
share’, ‘ a doubling of public transport by
2030’). However, the more practical policy
plans (that span just several years) are
not very clear on how, and through which
specific measures, these targets will be met.
Specific roadmaps towards these targets
are scarce. In other words, there appears
to be a discrepancy between long term
visions or ambitions and the concrete policy
measures that are actually being taken. Active
monitoring and evaluation of policy lacks the
central question: what works, and why?
The most relevant challenge therefore
lies in identifying what cities and their
municipalities need in order to turn their
ambitions regarding sustainable urban
mobility into reality.
Establishing mobility systems that are more
sustainable is a huge task for municipalities,
and this challenge is further impeded by
the current economic and financial crises.
A shift towards more sustainable urban
mobility is impossible without investments
(in road infrastructure, public transport,
campaigns etc.). European cities are not
safeguarded from these crises and are
experiencing a severe impact on municipal
budgets and projects.30/31 A reduction in the
(municipal) budgets evidently means less
money for investments in sustainability,
and leads cities to postpone and downsize
(mobility) projects32. The challenge caused by
the economic crisis in Europe is twofold; to
obtain the same results with less financial
means, and to maintain commitments
towards sustainable urban mobility in times
of economic crisis.33 Other difficulties also
24
Urban Space & Scale – A shift of priority in
urban transport modes – Ending ‘the love
affair with the car’
arise in relation to issues of governance due
to the polycentric structures that stem from
on-going urbanisation. As (functional) urban
areas no longer necessarily correspond with
municipal borders, and people tend to travel
longer distances (for example, to commute
from home to work), then how can we
determine on which scale mobility planning
is most effective?
Due to the immense growth in car use,
developments in the second half of the 20th
century have led to a situation in which
the private car dominates other modes of
transport both in the city and in its mobility
policies. This situation leads to problems
regarding congestion, parking spaces, air
quality, pollutant emissions, safety and
quality of life in general. However, when
looking at the urban mobility plans across
Europe, this situation should soon change.
By means of infrastructural measures (but
also through campaigns and the promotion
of other – more sustainable - modes of
transport, and occasionally regulation and
pricing mechanisms), municipalities try to
change the existing dominance of the car into
a new position so that all mobility modes are
present in the urban environment on a more
equal footing. Next to these, there are efforts
to promote the use of cleaner vehicles and
come to a cleaner public transport fleet. These
developments should be seen in combination
with improvements in the field of – especially
- public transportation and campaigns
aimed at awareness raising and behavioural
change. How can cities apply infrastructural
measures in order to promote the use of more
sustainable modes such as public transport,
cycling and walking? And what role can integrated - land use planning play regarding
mobility patterns and behaviour?
The policy and specific measures of
the European cities can be classified in
five main themes; urban space & scale,
regulation & pricing, lifestyle & behaviour,
ITS & technology and Governance. These
are the separate themes of this Knowledge
and Research Agenda, but should all
simultaneously be taken into account
when aspiring to take an integrated
approach towards urban mobility policy.
The reason they are being discussed
separately in this KRA is to be able to
make more comprehensible comparisons.
Obviously, these themes do not all get
equal consideration in urban mobility
policies. Generally speaking, infrastructural
interventions dominate these policies. Due
to the - usually - high costs, these policy
measures are specifically vulnerable to budget
restraints. Next to these, campaigning and
promoting the use of more sustainable modes
of transport (aimed at citizens, businesses,
visitors) are also rather popular policy
measures/tools. Due to lack of technological
knowledge (and budget restraints) and
political sensitivity, disincentives and
technology are underexposed in the mobility
policy plans of European cities.
25
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Cyclo Meeting in Slovenia
Regulation & Pricing- A balance between
‘Carrots’ and ‘Sticks’
Through ‘regulation and pricing’, - municipal
- authorities have a powerful tool to reduce
unwanted modes of transport and stimulate
the use of alternative mobility. The topic is
usually politically sensitive. Besides, there is a
lack of clarity on which level these measures
should best be decided on. Many urban
authorities are hesitant to make bold political
choices (such as the introduction of some
form of road pricing), of which is believed
they will not be accepted by the local people
(also electorate) and other stakeholders.
Most regulatory measures therefore concern
stricter parking policy. In urban mobility
policy in Europe, there are clearly more
Sustainable Urban Mobility
incentives (i.e. promotion of alternative
modes of transport) than disincentives
(reduction of car use through regulatory
and fiscal measures). In other words, there
is no balance between ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’.
How can urban municipalities ensure a
better balance between these two? And
what is needed in order to convince cities
that measures of regulation and pricing are
an essential part of truly committed urban
mobility policy?
Lifestyle & Behaviour – Promotional
campaigning alone is never enough
Promoting alternative modes of transport and
sustainable mobility behaviour appears to
be a popular tool throughout Europe. These
26
‘soft measures’, e.g. promotional campaigns
for cycling, information about alternative
modes of transport by targeted personalised
marketing and setting up company mobility
plans, are currently widely used, and many
successes advertised. However, cities struggle
with the fact that for this type of policy
instruments it is difficult to measure exact
results.
looks at the next steps that should result
(complete overhaul of fleet or rolling stock,
large investments) from this large amount
of pilot projects with green fuels and green
vehicles. The questions that come up are:
When is a good time to overhaul stock?
Which kind of green fuel will be ‘the best fuel’
in the future? For now, it does not seem that
cities dare to make large investments and
stick to pilot projects instead.
An important benefit of these measures are
their low costs compared to for example
infrastructural measures. However, it has
proved vital that, next to promotion and
campaigning, corresponding infrastructural
and planning measures need to be
implemented as well. To what extent are
cities capable of influencing the mobility
behaviour of their citizens, visitors and
companies?
So, if virtually all cities and urban areas in
Europe have (in their policies) the ambition
to strive for more sustainable urban mobility,
with clear visions and ambitions, then why
is this transformation not yet (speedily)
taking place? In order for European cities to
be able transform into the accessible, green,
clean, liveable and prosperous nodes they
envision, these visions and ambitions should
be translated into practical measures and
concrete actions.
ITS & Technology – Technological
innovation – How can cities contribute?
Cities can take advantage of modern
technology in urban mobility policy. However,
this seems to be a difficult topic for urban
municipalities; urban authorities sometimes
lack the specific technical knowledge
required, lack financial means or do not see
themselves as the authority responsible for
technological innovation. This is shown for
example when looking at the introduction of
greener vehicles, either electric or running
on clean fuels. Are these local or national
concerns, or perhaps the responsibility of
transport providers? There are many so called
demonstration or pilot projects addressing
green vehicles, and as it is one of the points
the European Union focuses on, there is quite
some European funding available (through
for example CIVITAS34 and the GreenCar
Initiative35). The problems arise when one
Instead of ‘What needs to be changed/done?’,
the more important question for cities in
Europe seems to be ‘How should this change
towards sustainable urban mobility be
successfully implemented?’
34 http://www.civitas.eu
35 http://www.green-cars-initiative.eu/public/
27
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Urb
Accessibility, connec
Sustainable Urban Mobility
28
Sustainable Urban Transport Research:
a State of the Art Review
By Dominic Stead, Delft University of Technology
3
Sustainable Urban Transport
3.1 Introduction – the evolving
research agenda of sustainable
urban transport
The role of urban transport policy in
contributing to sustainable development has
been on the political and academic agenda
for more than two decades. Soon after the
publication of the Brundtland Report in 1987,
various calls emerged from both policy and
research literature for more sustainable
approaches to urban transport policy (or
‘sustainable urban mobility’). The early 1990s
saw a great increase in activity on the subject.
In Europe, notable examples included the
OECD-ECMT inquiry into urban travel and
sustainable development (set up in 1991 and
which produced various reports during the
1990s36), and the European White Paper on
Transport (published in 1992), which called
for a new approach to transport policy giving
greater prominence to issues of natural resource
depletion and environmental degradation. At
the interface between transport policy-making
and academic research, an early example of
activity on sustainable transport policy was
the commission and publication of a collection
of essays from a group of transport analysts
(appointed by the UK’s then shadow transport
minister
John Prescott and edited by Roberts et
and
mobility
al, 1992) with the brief of providing a blueprint
for a new approach to more sustainable
transport policy. In general, transport policy
(and research) was ‘greened’ during the course
ban mobility
ctivity
of the 1990s or, in other words, given a more
environmental (and often ecological) rationale.
However, this is not to say that the importance
of the economic and social rationales of
transport were downgraded – in many cases
the new rationale was simply added alongside
these other rationales. Over the last decade or
so, greater attention in policy and research has
been focused on reconciling these rationales
and on ways of achieving greater integration
and synergy between them.
Starting in the early 1990s and continuing to the
present day, various authors have attempted
to define the research agenda associated
with transport and sustainable development.
Despite being produced at different times,
for different reasons, and across different
disciplines and continents, many key themes
remain surprisingly constant. An attempt to
synthesise and classify the main research
themes from a selected number of key texts is
presented in Figure 1. Five key research themes
for sustainable urban transport have been
distinguished in the classification scheme using
a combination of literature review (summarised
below) and expert opinion (via XX stakeholder
workshops organised by the European
Metropolitan Institute – see Appendix 1):
1 ICT and vehicle technology;
2 Urban space and scale;
3 Lifestyle and behaviour;
4 Regulation and pricing; and
5 Institutions and governance.
36 See for example OECD-ECMT (1995).
29
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Sustainable Urban Mobility
30
Improvements
in vehicle
fuel
effiency #
Transport
and location
prices #
Road
pricing
Spatial
incentives for
public
transport #
Information
technology
systems
Deregulation
and
privatisation #
Marketization
and
democratic
reform #
Transport
infrastructure
projects #
Technological
innovation and
telecommunication #
Knowles
1993*
Pricing/
taxation
Behavioural
patterns
Land use
planning
Technical
improvements
General
economic
policies
Information/
public
awareness
Infrastructure/mode
management
Telecommunications and
technology
Banister
et al 2000*
Fair, efficient,
stable
funding
Strategic
transport
infrastructure #
Effective
governance
of
land use and
transportation
Neighbourhood
design
Kennedy
et al 2005
New
mobility
Liveability
Intelligen
system
management
Goldman &
Gorham 2006*
Globalisation,
economy and
trade #
Institutions,
regulations
and markets
in transportation
Society,
behaviour and
public/private
transport
Environment,
safety, health,
land use and
congestion
ICT,
innovation
and the
transport
system
Nijkamp
2006
– the ‘institutions and governance’ theme is cross-cutting and is often implicit in discussions about other themes.
this approach does not always capture the true cross-cutting nature of some themes).
– many research/policy themes identified in these key texts are cross-cutting in nature and this is to some extent reflected by certain themes being placed in between categories (although
– the names of some research/policy themes have been slightly modified (marked with #).
– some additional research/policy themes identified by three authors (marked with *) have been omitted from the diagram (see text).
Notes
Institutions
and
governance
Regulation
and
pricing
Lifestyle
and
behaviour
Urban
space
scale
ICT and
vehicle
technology
Hensher
1993
Figure 2 Classification of key research themes in key texts concerning sustainable transport
Clearly, the process of classification involved
a degree of interpretation in order to fit the
ideas of others into Figure 1. Numerous
alternative interpretations are of course
possible, especially since some issues
identified by other authors cut across
several of the themes presented in the
classification scheme in Figure 1. Before
examining the nature and content of these
five research themes in more detail, a short
description is provided for each of the six
key texts identified in Figure 1. As the brief
descriptions highlight, the starting points,
methods and nature of the papers differ
quite substantially but a number of common
themes emerge.
clearly also informed by expert opinions
(through a NRMA workshop for example)
and inputs from peers.37
The second paper by Richard Knowles, a
British geographer based at the University
of Salford, takes the form of an editorial
essay that appeared in the first issue of
the Journal of Transport Geography in 1993
(which Knowles continues to edit). Knowles
identified nine research themes in his
paper with the primary aim of ‘stimulating
thought and continuing debate about
transport geography’s development’ (p.4)
in order to set the scene for the journal’s
content. His research themes represent
a collation of views from the journal’s
editorial board as well as a further 40
transport geographers from across the world
on important contemporary research issues
(in the early 1990s) in transport geography.
The focus of these themes is thus very
much wider than sustainable urban
transport, and it must be acknowledged that
a number of research themes that Knowles
proposed in his editorial do not fit into the
classification scheme in Figure 1 – most of
these themes relate to various impacts of
transport (including social, environmental
and energy-related issues). Nevertheless,
several of Knowles’ research themes do
closely match the main themes presented in
Figure 1.
3.2 Identifying key research themes
The first paper identified in Figure 1 is by
David Hensher, an economist by background
based at the University of Sydney, focuses
on how society might progress toward
an economically and environmentally
sustainable future. As such, it is more
oriented towards key implementation
issues than to research themes. The work
presented in this paper was funded by the
Australian Research Council as well as the
Australian National Roads and Motorists
Association (NRMA) and the Australian
Council of Social Service. Hensher identifies
five major issues: (i) land use, pricing
and individual behaviour; (ii) workplace
location, transport capacity and modal
shares; (iii) public transport and the
potential impact of road pricing; (iv) urban
dispersal, commuting, traffic congestion and
information technology; and (v) alternative
fuels. While the paper is primarily a
personal position statement by Hensher
on the issue of sustainable mobility, it was
A book on European transport policy and
sustainable mobility from 2000, authored by
David Banister (a British geographer based at
the University of Oxford) and six researchers
37 Evidence for these influences can be found in
Hensher’s acknowledgements.
31
Sustainable Urban Mobility
from Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands
and the UK, provides a third source of key
research themes for sustainable transport.
The book is based on the outcomes of an
international research project (POSSUM –
Policy Scenarios for Sustainable Mobility)
funded by the European Commission
between 1996 and 1998 under the Fourth
Framework Strategic Research Programme.
While the book’s authors do not identify
research themes as such, they do present
a wide-ranging set of policy measures (and
also packages of policies) that might help
to promote a more sustainable transport
system. They identify nine generic types of
policies38, based on a review and synthesis
of literature on the subject, closely following
(and extending) the classification of policy
measures set out in the 1995 OECD-ECMT
report on urban travel and sustainable
development (OECD-ECMT, 1995). Because
their main focus is on policy measures,
none of Banister et al’s main themes
directly address institutions and governance
(although all of their themes clearly have
direct implications for both institutions and
governance).
Published in 2005, the fourth paper
identified in Figure 1 was authored by
Christopher Kennedy (an engineer and
economist by background) together with
colleagues from the University of Toronto
38 These nine types of policies comprise: land
use planning; pricing/taxation; infrastructure/
mode management; technical improvements;
telecommunications and technology; behavioural
patterns; freight management (not shown in the
classification scheme in Figure 1); information and
public awareness; and general economic policies.
Sustainable Urban Mobility
in Canada. Based primarily on a review
and synthesis of literature, Kennedy and
his colleagues identify four essential
components (or ‘pillars’) for moving towards
sustainable urban transportation. Their
four pillars comprise: (i) effective bodies
for integrated land-use transportation
planning; (ii) fair, efficient and stable funding
mechanisms; (iii) strategic investments in
major infrastructure; and (iv) local design.
The content of the paper is structured
around key principles or foundations
for implementing sustainable transport
policy (rather than key research themes or
priorities). However, the authors explicitly
consider the research implications of each
of their pillars in the paper: they formulate
key questions and identify areas for future
research for each of the four pillars. The
issues of land use and governance emerge
as being particularly important in their
discussion of these four pillars.
The fifth paper is by Todd Goldman and
Roger Gorham, both from the United States
and both with a background in urban and
regional planning. Published in 2005, their
paper sets out ‘four emerging clusters of
practice’ (p.271). These clusters are not
intended to be a comprehensive grouping
of sustainability policies but rather an
indication of key areas of innovation that are
beginning to appear in sustainable transport
policy and practice. There is considerable
overlap between the four clusters and a
number of policy issues are omitted, such
as fuel and vehicle technology strategies
(as the authors themselves recognise). The
first cluster, ‘New Mobility’, addresses how
individuals plan their daily activities and
concerns economic and psychological factors
shaping mode choice and vehicle ownership
32
decisions. Their second cluster ‘City logistics’
(not shown in the classification scheme in
Figure 1) is concerned with business models
for more sustainable urban delivery systems.
The ‘Intelligent System Management’, the
third cluster, addresses the relationship
between infrastructure and the public
institutions that operate it. Fourth, the
‘Liveability’ cluster addresses how society
interacts with transportation systems. In
common with the papers by Hensher and
Banister et al (see above), this paper is more
heavily oriented towards identifying key
implementation issues rather than research
themes. Nevertheless, these implementation
issues provide a useful additional means
of considering the research challenges
and issues connected to sustainable urban
development. Due to their highly crosscutting nature, these four clusters are
perhaps the most difficult to classify and
position in Figure 1.
Considering the variety of approaches and
disciplines covered by the six key texts
identified in Figure 1, there is a remarkable
amount of agreement and correspondence
on key themes. There are of course certain
themes that feature in some texts but not in
others, and a few themes that were omitted
from the classification scheme illustrated in
Figure 1. In general however most themes
could be placed in the Figure with a few
exceptions (e.g. the themes of urban freight
which appears in papers by Banister et al,
2000 and Goldman and Gorham, 2006).
The content of the six key texts discussed
above not only help to identify general
research themes associated with sustainable
urban transport (presented in Figure 1), these
texts also provide a way of discerning a
variety of research sub-themes. A review of
the content of these six texts (in combination
with stakeholder workshops organised by
the European Metropolitan Institute – see
Appendix 1) has helped to compile an
indicative list of sub-themes for research on
sustainable urban development, which can be
found in Table 2. Many of these sub-themes
are discussed in more detail in the position
papers in Part II of this volume. What follows
in the text immediately below is an overview
of recommended starting points for reading
on each of the six research themes.
Sixth is the paper, authored by Peter Nijkamp,
a Dutch econometrist from Amsterdam’s Free
University, which sets out a transport policy
research agenda that was generated through
focus groups involving groups of experts from
two closely linked research networks from
Europe and North America.39 The activities
of the focus groups were organised around
five key themes: (i) globalisation, e-economy
and trade; (ii) ICT, innovation and the
transport system; (iii) society, behaviour and
private/public transport; (iv) environment,
safety, health, land use and congestion; and
(v) institutions, regulations and markets
in transportation. Of all the six key texts
described above, the main research themes
identified by Nijkamp probably bear the
closest resemblance to the classification
system adopted in Figure 1.
39 The two networks are the EU-funded STELLA
thematic network (Sustainable Transport in Europe
and Links and Liaisons with America) and the US
National Science Foundation funded STAR network
(Sustainable Transportation Analysis and Research).
33
Sustainable Urban Mobility
3.3 ICT and vehicle technology
Technology in its various forms has long been
a central concern in debates about solutions
to transport problems (Banister, 2002).
According to Banister & Stead (2004), three
basic arguments have been used to categorise
the possible impacts of ICT (Information and
communications technologies) on transport:
– stimulation of more travel as new
opportunities become available;
– substitution for travel as activities can
now be carried out remotely rather than by
travel;
– modification of travel as the two elements
combine to change the ways in which
activities are carried out.
Banister & Stead’s view is that this is a
rather simplistic conceptualisation of the
impacts of new technologies on transport
as it does not attempt to understand how
technologies develop and shape society
(Lyons, 2002). Many early studies seemed
to suggest a huge potential for change but
in practice the changes were often far less
obvious and more subtle. Moreover, even if
there are reductions in one set of transport
related activities (e.g. the journey to work),
there may be compensating increases at
other times, for other types of travel (e.g. for
shopping and social activities) or for other
users (which has strong links to the ‘rebound
effect’ described by Binswanger, 2001). For
example, ICT may reduce the number of
journeys to work (for certain professions at
least) but at the same time may increase the
length of journeys (where ICT allows work to
be done during the journey): an example of
substitution and stimulation effects taking
place simultaneously (see also Mokhtarian,
2003).
Sustainable Urban Mobility
In their review of the impacts of ICT on
transport, Banister & Stead (2004) set out
three key unresolved questions concerning
the future of transport demand and analysis,
which are summarised below:
1 The limits to travel. In the past, every
technological innovation has acted to
increase that demand rather than reduce
it. The question here is whether ICT acts
as a brake or an accelerator in this process.
The evidence cited in this paper suggests
that there is substantial scope for reducing
some types of (less valued) travel demand,
like the journey to work, but equally it may
encourage other (higher valued) longer
distance travel, like leisure travel. ICTs on
their own cannot change the direction of
current trends towards a less sustainable
transport system.
2 Travel as a derived demand. The traditional
view that travel is only undertaken because
of the benefits derived at the destination
being higher than the associated costs is no
longer generally applicable. For example,
substantial amounts of leisure travel are
undertaken for its own sake and the activity
of travelling is valued positively. This
conclusion has enormous implications for
transport analysis as most conventional
analysis is based on the premise that travel
distances should be short and that travel
time should be minimised.
3 The latent demand for transport. The balance
between substitutive and complementary
effects of ICT use with respect to transport
has been one of the main issues of debate
over the past decade, and is based on
different assumptions regarding the role
of latent demand. If distance working or
any other ICT-based activity leads to the
substitution of a trip, it is possible that
additional trips will be made by others.
34
Table 2 Key research themes for sustainable urban transport and indicative sub-themes
Key research themes
Indicative sub-themes
ICT and vehicle technology
•
•
•
•
•
•
Integrated travel planning services/systems.
Real-time traveller information.
Route guidance and optimisation systems (including parking availability).
Dynamic road traffic signalling.
Dynamic road pricing.
Alternative fuels.
Urban space and scale
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Density, diversity and design of the built environment.
Development around public transport nodes (transit-oriented development).
Car free zones.
Cycling and walking infrastructure/networks/priority.
Local services and facilities.
Street layout/traffic calming.
Road capacity.
Parking provision and standards.
Segregated public transport routes.
Park & ride facilities.
Lifestyle and behaviour
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Demographic change.
Urban growth/decline.
Campaigns to promote more sustainable transport modes.
Campaigns to promote awareness about public transport services.
Car sharing and hire schemes.
Bike sharing and hire schemes.
Personal mobility plans.
Regulation and pricing
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Planning regulations (single use, mixed use, density).
Parking tariffs/restrictions/control.
Entry prohibitions/access control/environmental zones.
Priorities for bus, tram and high occupancy vehicles (HOVs).
Vehicle speed limits.
Low emission zones.
Fare integration and schedule coordination.
Regulations and subsidies for cleaner vehicles.
Institutions and governance
• Decentralisation, privatisation and deregulation.
• Powers and responsibilities.
•Benchmarking.
• Policy indicators.
• Assessment of plans and programmes.
• Policy packaging.
• Policy experimentation.
•Visioning/envisioning.
35
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Andreev et al (2010) provide a more recent
review of the major direct impacts of ICT
on personal activities and travel, either in
the form of substitution, complementarity,
modification or neutrality (where ICT
use does not lead to changes in travel).
Their review considers the impacts of four
areas of teleactivities (telecommuting,
teleconferencing, teleshopping teleservices
and teleleisure) on travel. In the case of
telecommuting, Andreev et al’s conclusion
is that it can contribute to reduction of the
various travel characteristics (e.g. passenger
kilometres, vehicle kilometres, emissions,
number of commuting trips) in the short
term. In the long term, however, the impacts
of telecommuting are still disputed. As for
teleshopping, despite expectations that it
could potentiality substitute traditional
shopping, the majority of studies reviewed
by Andreev et al indicate that teleshopping
is more likely to be complementarity to
traditional shopping rather than replacing
it. On the other hand, various studies on
maintenance teleactivities (e.g. telebanking,
telemedicine) indicate substitution effects.
Meanwhile, studies suggest that teleleisure
(often involving recreation at home rather
than going elsewhere) does not result in
significant travel substitution, and some
studies indicate that teleleisure may have a
complementary impact. According to Andreev
et al’s review, the impacts of teleleisure
remain the most understudied issue of all
teleactivities.
The possible contribution of different
vehicle technologies to sustainable urban
development is considered in a 2009 joint
report of the Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency and the Stockholm
Resilience Centre. It reports that full-electric
Sustainable Urban Mobility
vehicles and hydrogen-powered fuel-cell
vehicles are two of the most promising
technological options for decarbonising
passenger road transport. However, neither
electricity nor hydrogen is well suited for
long-distance road freight transport because
of storage capacity. In addition, hydrogen as
jet fuel will require total aircraft redesign and
large changes in infrastructure. The report
indicates that technology alone will not be
sufficient to achieve a low carbon transport
system by 2050. Low-carbon transport also
requires changes in behaviour, which can
be influenced through various land use,
regulatory, pricing, education and awareness
mechanisms (see below).
3.4 Urban space and scale
The search for sustainable urban transport
policies has contributed to increasing
attention being paid to land use and
urban form and how this might help to
reduce the need to travel. Early studies of
the relationships between land use and
travel behaviour often assumed a simple
sort of physical determinism, where the
built environment alone was thought to
shape individual action and behaviour. The
influences of socio-economic factors on
travel behaviour were often not considered in
these early studies. Later on, acknowledging
that society is not spatially homogenous
(i.e. different areas have different land-use
patterns and are home to different sorts of
people), studies began to consider the threeway relationships between land-use patterns,
the socio-economic profile of individuals
and their travel patterns. More recently still,
investigation in this field also attempts to
incorporate issues of lifestyles and attitudes,
related both to the socio-economic profile
36
of individuals and also to the choices
individuals make about their residential
location and mode of transport.
urban land-use and infrastructure differences
and differences in national and sub-national
policies and rules), the lack of consistency of
data from the different cities (both in terms
of reliability and geographical coverage) and
the lack of evidence on causality (correlation
provides no proof of causality). As a result,
a wave of studies were carried out and
reported in the 1990s that examined the
effect of different characteristics of the built
environment (not just urban density but also
settlement size, land-use mix, proximity to
main transport networks, street patterns and
so on) on transport energy consumption at
a more disaggregated level (for a review, see
for example Stead and Marshall, 2001). Other
studies in the 1990s chose to look beyond
transport energy consumption and examine
the links between urban form (according to
various characteristics) and personal travel
distance, frequency and mode choice (Stead
and Marshall, 2001).
The oil crises of the 1970s were a key reason
for studying the relationships between landuse and travel behaviour during the 1970s
and 1980s. A central concern was how to
improve energy efficiency and reduce oil
dependence through a variety of means,
including the built environment. Early
studies were often more theoretical than
empirical (complex multivariate analyses of
travel survey data were practically beyond
the computing capability of the time) and
the focus was primarily on transport-related
energy use (e.g. Hillman and Whalley, 1983;
Owens, 1986; Rickaby, 1987). Much of this first
wave of studies focused on the connection
between density and public transport use
(Handy et al, 2005). A study by Pushkarev and
Zupan (1977) for example claimed that public
transport use could be increased through
polices that increase densities. In 1989, the
simple bivariate analysis by Newman and
Kenworthy correlating urban densities and
transport energy consumption in a sample
of international cities sparked heated debate
in the research field and helped give rise
to a range of more sophisticated studies in
the 1990s to try to either confirm or contest
Newman and Kenworthy’s thesis that urban
density is the key determinant of transport
energy consumption.
In the early 1990s, these studies often lacked
a strong socio-economic dimension: the main
focus was still on trying to explain differences
in travel behaviour (measured according
to various criteria) in terms of urban form
(also measured according to various criteria).
By the mid-1990s, however, an increasing
amount of research was being carried out
and reported that took account of the links
between urban form, the characteristics of
individuals and their travel behaviour. The
mid-1990s marked the approximate point
at which research started to try to reconcile
theories of physical determinism with
ideas from social and cultural geography
on socio-spatial patterns of norms, habits
and actions. According to various review
articles, the number of studies incorporating
these dimensions into research experienced
Critics of Newman and Kenworthy’s study
identified various weaknesses of the
approach (see for example Mindali et al., 2004;
Troy, 1992), such as the lack of multivariate
analyses to take account of other differences
between the cities (e.g. socio-economic
differences of inhabitants in these cities,
37
Sustainable Urban Mobility
rapid growth in the 1990s (see for example
Boarnet and Crane, 2001; Ewing and Cervero,
2001). Sorting out the extent to which socioeconomic characteristics and characteristics
of the built environment impact travel
behaviour is a common challenge in these
studies. Ewing and Cervero (2001), after one of
the most thorough reviews of studies, come to
the conclusion that the built environment has
a greater impact on journey distances than
the number of journeys people make, and the
choice of transport mode depends as much
on socio-economic characteristics as urban
form. In other words, socio-economic factors
can help to explain some of the observed
differences in travel behaviour within cities
(and between cities): urban form is certainly
not the sole determinant of travel behaviour.
www.eltis.org
Sustainable Urban Mobility
38
However, urban form does seem to have a role
to play in shaping individual travel patterns,
particularly with regard to journey distances,
according to the conclusions of many of these
studies.
Handy and Clifton (2001) and Bagley and
Mokhtarian (2002) for example suggest that
the associations between travel behaviour
and neighbourhood characteristics are largely
explained by self-selection (residents with
certain attitudes choosing to live in certain
kinds of neighbourhoods). On the other
hand, Schwanen and Mokhtarian (2005),
using a different methodology, report that
urban form does affect travel behaviour even
when attitudes are taken into account. Næss
(2009) argues that if households self-select
into areas that meet their travel preferences,
it is self-evident that urban form matters
and exerts an influence on travel behaviour
(which is of course closely linked to the
theme of lifestyles and behaviour – see
below). Like Schwanen and Mokhtarian
(2005), Næss also contends that residential
location (urban form) exerts considerable
influence on the choice of transport mode,
even after self-selection is taken into account.
In fact, he concludes that the impact of
urban structure on travel behaviour may
often be underestimated in many studies
that contain a large number of variables on
attitudes, preferences and socio-economic
characteristics.
By around 2000, the debate about the links
between urban form and travel behaviour
started to shift to the issue of causality
(Handy et al., 2005). Understanding the role
of self-selection formed a new focus for
research in this field. According to Handy et
al (2005), it presents the key to understanding
the causal relationship between the built
environment and travel behaviour. A number
of possible models have been identified in
which attitudes and opinions can be linked
to urban form and travel behaviour (Cao
et al, 2009). For example, it is possible that
attitudes are primary, where preferences
for particular types of neighbourhood or
transport modes influence both travel choices
and the type of residential location and
perhaps also their choice of employer (where
the employer is located and how easily it
can be reached by certain modes). On the
other hand, it could be that attitudes are
intervening, whereby a person’s residential
(or workplace) environment influences his
or her attitudes and ideas (e.g. through
neighbours or colleagues) and these in turn
exert an influence on certain travel choices
and behaviour. Or it could be that attitudes
are secondary (or irrelevant), where urban
form influences travel choices and behaviour
more directly (or alternatively where travel
behaviour influences location choices).
On the question of whether urban form has
a distinct influence on travel choices, even
after accounting for self-selection, current
empirical evidence seems to be affirmative.
According to Cao et al (2009), virtually every
quantitative study that they reviewed, even
after controlling for self-selection, revealed
some significant influence of urban form on
travel behaviour, both journey distance and
number of journeys (although their opinion is
that the relative contribution of urban form
is often relatively small compared to other
factors such as socio-demographic variables).
Since 2000, a few studies have begun
to address the issue of self-selection by
accounting for preferences and attitudes.
Their conclusions are varied. Studies by
39
Sustainable Urban Mobility
On the question whether the influence of
urban form diminishes once residential selfselection is taken into account, the answer
is also often affirmative (although some
authors disagree – see for example Næss,
2009). It must be noted however that studies
on self-selection are still in their infancy and
that understanding more about the causal
relationships between attitudes, urban
form and travel behaviour requires complex
experimental design that has not yet been
extensively examined and reported.
3.5 Lifestyle and behaviour
It has long been recognised that socioeconomic characteristics of individuals, such
as gender, age, employment status, income
and so on, influence travel choices and
patterns. What is more recent is attention
to individual lifestyles and the role they
can play in influencing travel choices.
Behind this research is the realisation that,
even accounting for numerous social and
economic differences, individual travel
behaviour is still extremely varied, and
that individual’s attitudes and willingness
to change are also highly diverse (Anable,
2005). As Kitamura (2009) recognises,
the notion of lifestyles has a variety of
interpretations, touching on issues related
to life-cycles (stages of life), time-use in
daily life (the amount of time spent doing
different activities) as well as values and
attitudes, and each of these issues can
have a significant influence on individual
travel choices and patterns (see also the
contribution by Goodwin later in this
volume).
It is becoming widely recognised that
attempts to address unsustainable patterns
Sustainable Urban Mobility
of travel require a detailed understanding of
travel behaviour and the reasons for choosing
one mode of transport over another (Anable,
2005). It is also becoming increasingly
apparent that rational, instrumental
arguments (and policy measures) may be
insufficient to deliver radical changes in
travel behaviour. A variety of ‘soft’ approaches
aimed at promoting travel behaviour
change are being increasingly advocated
and used (Table 3). According to Cairns et
al (2008), the word ‘soft’ was originally used
to distinguish these approaches from ‘hard’
measures (such as physical improvements
to transport infrastructure or operations,
traffic engineering, control of road space
and changes in price), although some soft
factors do include elements of this nature
(e.g. workplace travel plans often including
parking restrictions). Soft also refers to the
nature of the traveller response since these
approaches often address psychological
motivations for travel choice as well as
economic ones. In general, soft approaches
place more emphasis on management and
marketing activities rather than operations
and investment (ibid). As is apparent from
Table 3, some soft approaches aimed at
changing behaviour are closely linked to
ICT measures (in the case of teleworking,
teleconferencing and home shopping for
example). The relationships between lifestyle,
behaviour and travel choices are also very
closely linked to research on urban form and
travel patterns (discussed above), especially
in relation to issues of residential and
occupational self-selection. Clearly, all of the
different types of soft interventions might
have different impacts on different groups
of individuals, dependent on socio-economic
and lifestyle characteristics.
40
Table 3 Ten examples of ‘soft’ approaches aimed at promoting travel behaviour change.
1 Workplace travel plans
Measures are implemented mainly by employers to encourage and enable
employees to travel to work more sustainably.
2 School travel plans
Measures are introduced at an individual school to encourage and enable
children to travel to school more sustainably.
3 Personalized travel
planning
Individuals are offered information carefully tailored to their personal and
locational circumstances to encourage and enable them to travel more
sustainably
4 Public transport
information and marketing
Public transport information and publicity is produced and marketed,
including advertising campaigns, information in more accessible formats
and simplified ticketing schemes.
5 Travel education and
awareness campaigns
Various media are used to try to improve public awareness about different
transport choices and their impacts, including changing personal
behaviour
6 Car clubs
Car clubs provide subscribers with shared access to vehicles in their
neighbourhood and provide an alternative to individual car ownership.
7 Car sharing schemes
Car sharing schemes provide ways of assisting individuals to share vehicles
for particular journeys (also known as ‘car-pooling’ or ‘ride sharing’ in other
countries).
8Teleworking
Employers encourage employees to adopt a range of remote working
practices, including working at home or in another location for some or all
of the time.
9Teleconferencing
Telecommunications are used to facilitate communication that might
otherwise have involved travel and face-to-face contact.
10 Home shopping
Customers purchase goods which are subsequently delivered directly,
rather than purchased in a store and transported home.
Adapted from Cairns et al, 2008.
One factor closely related to lifestyles that
has recently caught the attention of several
researchers is the importance of social
networks on individual activity patterns.
Several studies have started to probe the
relationships between individual travel
patterns and choices and social networks
(e.g. Carrasco and Miller, 2006; Dugundji
and Walker, 2005; Miller and Roorda, 2003;
Schwanen, 2008). The starting point of
these studies is the hypothesis that travel
behaviour cannot be understood by solely
examining individual socio-economic
characteristics such as age, gender or income,
but that it is also necessary to consider social
networks (e.g. network composition and
physical distance between contacts) in order
to understand and explain how travel choices
vary between individuals.
41
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Psychological factors, including perceptions,
identity, social norms and habits, are also
becoming increasingly used to understand
individual travel choices. According to Anable
(2005), research into travel choices in the
past has often overlooked the fact that the
combination of instrumental, situational and
psychological factors affecting travel choice
will differ in distinct ways for different groups
of people. Studies based on psychological
theories of attitude-behaviour relations
(e.g. the theory of planned behaviour) have
generally concluded that the choice of
travel mode is largely a reasoned decision
related to attitudes and values (Bamberg and
Schmidt, 1998; Forward, 1998). On the other
hand, studies based on theories of habitual
behaviour suggest that individual travel
choices are often based on standard routines,
or ways of doing things, and do not frequently
involve the deliberation of alternatives
(Bamberg et al, 2003; Ronis et al, 1989;
Verplanken et al, 1994). Evidence from the
latter body of work implies that influencing
travel behaviour involves substantially
more than presenting a set of well-reasoned
arguments: it also requires interventions that
challenge and modify habits or routines (Van
Acker et al, 2010).
In summary, travel choices do not occur in
a vacuum but are built into a complex web
of other choices on how people live, and the
constraints and conditions under which they
make those choices (as Goodwin concludes
later in this volume). The whole way of
thinking about travel and lifestyles therefore
needs to be seen as a process of change
over time and not as a fixed state. When
considering issues of behaviour and lifestyle,
and especially when considering how to
promote more sustainable transport choices,
Sustainable Urban Mobility
it is also essential to bear in mind that the
openness (and resistance) to change among
individuals is certainly not homogenous. This
means that an intervention may fall on fallow
ground among certain groups of individuals
while other groups may be very receptive
to the same intervention. This implies
that interventions need to consider and be
responsive to the motivations and constraints
of different groups of individuals (Anable,
2005). Targeting certain groups (e.g. those
willing to change) might sometimes lead to
more significant changes in travel choices in
total than a campaign of action across that
attempts to target a much wider audience.
3.6 Regulation and pricing
As Nash and Whitelegg recognise in their
contribution later in this volume, a huge
amount of research has been devoted to
the way in which ‘hard’ measures, such as
regulation and pricing, have or could be
implemented in the transport sector in order
to reduce negative externalities on society
(e.g. environmental pollution, damage to the
natural and built environment, transportrelated fatalities and injuries, congestion
of transport infrastructure) and thereby
promote more sustainable transport choices.
Clearly, it is not just the regulation or pricing
of transport use and operation that can
influence the demand for transport: general
macro-economic policies and regulations in
other policy sectors also influence transport
demand (Stead and Banister, 2001). Santos
et al (2010) distinguish between two types of
instruments for addressing the externalities
of transport (which they term command-andcontrol and incentive-based instruments),
which essentially relate to regulation and
pricing respectively.
42
Table 4 Examples of regulatory and pricing instruments in the transport sector
1Command-and-control
policies
•
•
•
•
•
•
2a Incentive-based policies
(quantity control)
Emissions trading
2b Incentive-based policies
(fiscal policy instruments)
Taxes on vehicle usage, including:
• emission taxes.
• fuel taxes.
• taxes on travel distance.
• congestion charges.
• parking charges.
• distance-related insurance charges.
Fuel standards.
Vehicle standards.
Low emission zones.
Restrictions on vehicle circulation.
Restrictions on vehicle ownership.
Parking restrictions.
Incentives for the purchase and ownership of cleaner vehicles, such
as:
• subsidies to efficient vehicles and feebates.
• scrappage incentives.
• Vehicle ownership and usage taxes.
• Company cars and other incentives.
• Revenue allocation.
Based on Santos et al (2010).
The first type of instruments, commandand-control policies, comprises government
regulations that require consumers and
producers to change their behaviour. This
type of policy instruments is very widely
used and examples include vehicle emission
and fuel standards and parking restrictions
(Table 4). While these instruments often
fail to achieve an efficient market outcome
from an economic perspective, political
constraints often make these instruments
the preferred option in terms of feasibility
and effectiveness, especially since the cost
of implementing these instruments for
governments is relatively small. The second
type of instruments, incentive-based policies
(or pricing measures), creates new markets
or alters existing markets. Examples include
registration, ownership, fuel, emissions,
usage taxes, and parking and congestion
charges (Table 4), many of which have been
implemented widely across the world. They
include the use of taxes and charges in order
to bridge the gap between private and the
social costs and, in principle, can help to
internalise the external costs of transport. By
providing economic incentives, these policies
are crucial instruments for influencing
behavioural change. Like command-andcontrol instruments, incentive-based
instruments are widely used in the transport
sector because they are relatively cheap and
43
Sustainable Urban Mobility
simple to implement. No attempt is made
here to synthesise the large body of research
on regulation and pricing to which Nash and
Whitelegg refer (a recent review of a wide
range of literature in the field can be found
in a paper by Santos et al, 2010). Instead, the
discussion on regulation and pricing focuses
primarily on emerging and/or unresolved
research questions.
According to Nash and Whitelegg, in their
contribution later in this volume, research
is relatively limited and less conclusive in
terms of the impacts of different sorts of
pricing schemes on urban (and regional)
spatial development and on the wider urban
economy. Unresolved questions remain for
example concerning the impacts of road
pricing on urban decentralisation, sprawl
and/or job losses from existing urban centres
and effects on the urban economy as a whole.
Similar unresolved questions also apply to
the impacts of public transport pricing and
parking policies. Other related issues have
been raised by Greene and Wegener (1997)
who point to various unanswered questions
concerning the efficiency and equity of
pricing instruments and the acceptability
of fundamental changes in the pricing
and financing of transport. They question
the extent to which full social cost pricing
is achievable in practice and whether it
will inherently lead to a more sustainable
transport system. They also question whether
there are combinations of strategies that can
achieve more sustainable patterns of mobility
if full social cost pricing is not practical (the
combination of strategies, or policy packages,
is considered in more detail below). Other
unanswered questions, according to Greene
and Wegener (1997), concern the implications
of full social cost pricing for the growth
Sustainable Urban Mobility
of mobility, technological change and the
financing of public transport.
Regulation and pricing instruments raise a
number of research questions related to social
equity and acceptance. For example, certain
pricing instruments, such as congestion
pricing, are often regressive (i.e. pose a greater
financial burden on the poor than the rich).
Other instruments or strategies for sustainable
mobility (e.g. carbon neutral development)
may raise questions of social justice (Anable
et al, 2012). Much remains to be done to
understand the equity as well as efficiency
implications of alternative transport pricing
strategies. Although a number of studies have
examined the benefits and costs of congestion
and external pricing, the long-term impacts
on land-use and spatial structure are still not
very well understood. From the viewpoint of
urban sustainability, these issues are crucial.
Many opportunities exist for further research
into the public and political acceptance of
individual policy instruments and packages
of measures, and strategies for increasing
acceptance.
3.7Governance
The dynamic nature of the governance
of transport makes it an evolving and
complex field of inquiry. Moreover, the
varied nature of governance across different
cities, regions and states adds further
complexity and challenges of research and
practice in the area. Both literature and
practice indicate that there is substantial
variation in governance arrangements and
practices across Europe (and the world),
not only due to the fact that governments
are constituted differently but also because
non-governmental actors play different roles
44
in each country and have different levels
of influence on decision-making processes
(Salomon et al, 1993; Loughlin, 2007). These
differences imply substantial variety in the
governance of transport between nations.
As Marsden and May (2006) recognise,
differences in governance arrangements,
such as the distribution of responsibilities
and funding, have a substantial impact
on the effectiveness of transport strategy
development and delivery. To date, however,
understanding of the impacts of different
governance arrangements on transport
strategy development and delivery is limited
and substantial scope exists for much more
work in this field.
significantly improved insight into the genesis
of cross-country differences in transport
policy.
Exploring the ways in which social science
might contribute to research on climate
change energy and transport issues, Anable
et al (2012) recently highlight governance as a
key theme. They identify the need for research
in transport which captures the full extent of
governance processes, policy networks and the
politics of infrastructure and place, and which
moves beyond the view of policy-making as a
task solely for public authorities and considers
a wider set of actors at multiple geographical
scales, thereby more fully reflecting the notion
of multilevel governance.
Various authors also claim that substantial
differences in policy-making cultures and
modes of operation exist between different
nations (Aspinwall, 1999; Button, 1998; Kerwer
& Teutsch, 2001; Molle, 1990; Stevens, 2004).
According to Aspinwall (1999), for example,
national transport policy in countries such
as France and Germany is organised around
principles of cohesion, security, employment
and public service whereas transport policy
in countries such as the Netherlands and the
United Kingdom is predominantly organised
around a liberal approach in which transport is
considered to be a service to support industry.
These differences illustrate that transport
policies are not just a matter of choosing the
most cost effective or efficient package of
instruments to achieve goals, but that also
basic societal values play a role (Stough and
Rietveld, 1997). These basic values have a
strong impact on the political feasibility of
policy adoption. Further research into the
nature of these cultural and value differences
in transport policy formation, according to
Stough and Rietveld (1997), would provide
As Stead argues later in his position paper
in Part II of this agenda, it has long been
acknowledged that there can be benefits from
introducing packages of policies rather than
single measures. Effective policy packages
often require complementary actions in other
sectors: this critically entails maximizing
synergies between policies across different
sectors and/or different institutions which
requires intersectoral and intergovernmental
approaches (Geerlings et al, 2012). Substantial
scope exists for new research into how policy
packages can increase political and public
acceptance of policies and generate synergies
between measures. Research on these issues
to date has only started to scratch the surface.
3.8Conclusions
From the review of the academic literature,
a number of common themes recur in many
reviews of sustainable transport. These
include issues related to ICT and technology,
land-use and infrastructure, lifestyle and
45
Sustainable Urban Mobility
behaviour, regulation and pricing, and
institutions and governance. These five
themes have featured in research (and also
policy) agendas for quite some time and are
likely to remain on future research agendas
for the foreseeable future. For each of these
themes, there is substantial scope for pushing
forward existing research boundaries related
to sustainable urban transport. Various
cross-cutting issues are identified below
where there are significant opportunities to
extend research in these five themes. The
cross-cutting issues identified here are by no
means comprehensive but rather represent
an attempt to identify the more promising
(and relatively under-researched) issues. Table
5 identifies examples of research questions
according to each of these four areas and the
five research themes discussed in the paper
(ICT and vehicle technology; Urban space and
scale; Lifestyle and behaviour; Regulation and
pricing; and Institutions and governance).
paths towards low carbon transport
technologies.
3Attractive. The effects of urban quality of
life and attractiveness of the built and
natural environment/public transport
on individual travel choices. Measures to
improve accessibility without the need for
additional mobility.
4Competitive. Identifying mechanisms
that can promote greater innovation/
experimentation in urban transport policy.
Instruments for delinking (decoupling)
transport growth and urban productivity/
competitiveness. Instruments for delinking
growth in prosperity with growth in travel
demand.
1Integrated. How ‘packages’ of policies
can be developed and implemented to
maximise synergies between measures.
How policy coordination can be achieved
horizontally and vertically between public
and private actors, and between different
levels of government. How integrated
public transport (e.g. ticketing, timetabling,
information) can be promoted, particularly
across administrative boundaries and
between different transport providers.
2Robust/resilient. The adaptability of
transport infrastructure and services
to climate change and oil scarcity. The
effects of changing weather on travel
choices and mode share. The vulnerability
of current infrastructure and services to
higher precipitation levels/flooding. The
development and introduction of transition
Sustainable Urban Mobility
46
Table 5 Examples of research questions
ICT and vehicle
technology
Urban space
and scale
Lifestyle
and behaviour
Regulation
and pricing
Institutions
and governance
Integrated
To what extent can
improved traveller
information (e.g.
multi-modal and
real-time) lead
to changes in
travel choices and
preferences?
How can urban
layout and design
help to improve
the acceptability
of dense,
mixed urban
development?
How can the
influence of
personalised travel
information on
individual travel
choices (e.g. mode,
frequency and
time of travel) be
maximised?
What are effective
regulatory and
fiscal instruments
for promoting
modal integration
and multi-modal
ticketing?
How can policy
packages promote
synergies
between policy
instruments?
How can policy
packages
involving different
stakeholders be
integrated?
Robust/
resilient
How can ICT and
vehicle technology
contribute to the
resilience of cities
to climate change
and resource
depletion?
How resilient is
urban transport
infrastructure to
climate change
and resource
depletion?
What are the
impacts of climate
change and
resource depletion
on future transport
needs and
individual travel
choices?
How can
regulatory and
fiscal instruments
be used to increase
the take-up of
alternative fuels
and new vehicle
technologies?
To what extent are
policies, processes
and practices
robust or resilient
under different
governance
conditions?
Attractive
What is the role
of sustainable
transport
technologies in
promoting more
attractive cities in
which to live and
work?
To what extent can
high quality urban
transport infrastructure (and its
design) promote
attractive cities in
which to live and
work?
What is the
influence of high
quality urban
transport infrastructure (and its
design and quality)
on individual
travel choices?
How can the
quality of
transport services
be improved
under conditions
of transport
deregulation?
What is the
contribution
of visions and
envisioning in
making and
delivering
transport policy?
Competitive
What is the role
of sustainable
transport
technologies in
promoting more
competitive cities?
To what extent can
high quality urban
transport infrastructure (and its
design) promote
competitive cities?
Can more
sustainable
urban transport
policies attract
and maintain
innovative
businesses and
sustainable
residents?
How can value for
money be delivered
concurrently
with high-quality
integrated
transport services?
Can long-term
transport policy
visions help
to reconcile
objectives for
more efficient,
equitable and
sustainable urban
development?
47
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Urb
Accessibility, connec
Sustainable Urban Mobility
48
A Strategic Knowledge and Research Agenda on
Sustainable Urban Mobility
4Synthesis
4.1 Synthesis Introduction
enquiry into the research needs of cities for
the following decades has been:
“Despite different research traditions, different
policy constellations, different lifestyles and
mobility patterns, and different socio-economic
conditions it is of utmost relevance to identify
commonalities and differences in research findings
and policy impacts” 40
How do actors in cities and urban areas in their
policies for sustainable urban mobility strive for
a transition towards a mobility based on walking
and cycling, high quality public transport and
less-used and cleaner passenger vehicles, while
preserving the social and economic achievements
of their current mobility systems?
This report on ‘sustainable urban mobility’
is the result of a year-long investigation into
the state of the art of academic research on
and policy practice in European cities and
metropolitan areas. It aims to bridge the gap
between research and practice in the field of
urban mobility (‘research-based, practice-led’).
The synthesis is divided into four main parts.
First, the state of the art of policy practice
and research is summarised (section 4.2).
Second, a number of research needs and
questions stemming from both research and
practice are identified (in section 4.3) based
on five themes of sustainable urban mobility
(Urban space & scale, Regulation & pricing,
Lifestyle & behaviour, ITS & Technology and
Governance). These research needs and
questions were developed in cooperation
with urban practitioners42 and academic
In 2011 the European Commission called
for a new type of mobility, which involves a
necessary transition from a primarily car based
personal mobility in cities to a mobility based on
walking and cycling, high quality public transport
and less-used and cleaner passenger vehicles.41
This ‘new type of mobility’ is (in more or less
the same words) also addressed in the long
term mobility visions of many European cities.
40 Nijkamp P, 2006, “In search of a transport policy
research agenda” International Journal of Transport
Economics XXXIII(2) 142.
Therefore, this report is focused on the
questions what (type of) research is needed
for European cities to lead the way to more
sustainable
urban mobility and how cities can
and
mobility
move in this direction.
41 SEC (2011)391 final: ‘Commission Staff Working
ban mobility
ctivity
Document accompanying the White Paper –
Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area:
Towards a competitive and resource efficient
transport system’, p. 89
42 Through the EMI-POLIS workshop (June 2011), e-mail
Which policies do European cities pursue,
which initiatives, programs and projects do
they develop? And which results do they
achieve?
contacts with various urban practitioners for the
State of the Art Urban Practice, the Urban Practice
Guide, Eurocities Mobility Forum (October 2011),
URBAN Intergroup meeting (November 2011), CYCLO
Meeting (March 2012), etc. See the list of meetings,
The guiding question that directed this
conferences etc. in the appendix of this KRA.
49
Sustainable Urban Mobility
researchers43. A number of differences in
the focus of policy practice and research –
these are summarised under 11 key areas
(in section 4.4). The final part of this chapter
(section 4.5) sketches a future (applied)
knowledge and research agenda on the theme
of ‘sustainable urban mobility’ based on this
enquiry.
Such a new European knowledge and
research programme is all the more necessary
in order to build on the lessons learnt from
individual cities and to identify generalisable
policy lessons and recommendations. Various
practical projects such as those funded
by the CIVITAS Initiative44 have helped to
support experiments in urban mobility but
they have not generally had a strong research
dimension, and have not fully considered
the generalisability or transferability of the
lessons from these experiments.
This report presents an overview of important
research needs and questions for cities, based
on an analysis of the current state of the
art in both policy and research. The report
sets the agenda for cities with the ambition
43 Through the EMI-POLIS workshop (June 2011), EMI
to implement a sustainable urban mobility
systems based on scientifically funded
knowledge and insights.
4.2 Synthesis State of the Art policy
practice and research
“Public acceptability of sustainable mobility seems
to be high, provided that social norms can be
changed and the policy measures are presented as
a package that can effectively be implemented”45
Policy documents in many European cities
pose ‘sustainable urban mobility’ as the
leading policy objective. Long-term vision
documents (e.g. 2040, 2050) sketch images
of green, safe, and healthy cities where the
quality of life for citizens has been improved
as a result of a range of measures including
ones to tackle urban transport problems.
Important dimensions of cities’ visions and
ambitions for sustainable urban mobility
include:
– greater levels of accessibility in the city,
without requiring greater levels of mobility
– a more sustainable modal split (i.e. less
reliance on cars, greater use of alternative
modes of transport)
– green and attractive public spaces and
– lower impacts on the environment,
scientific expert meeting (September 2011), the
position papers of Van Wee & Handy (Urban Space
& Scale), Sitavancova (ITS & Technology), Stead
(Governance), Goodwin (Lifestyle & Behaviour) Nash
& Whitelegg (Regulation & Pricing), contributions
of Prof. dr. Wim Hafkamp (Nicis Institute, Erasmus
University), Mobil.TUM2012 scientific conference
(March 2012) etc. See the list of meetings,
conferences etc. in the appendix of this KRA.
Recurring themes in the municipal policy
documents are cycling, priority for public
transport, shared mobility, infrastructural changes
(co-existing transport modes), integrated land-use
planning, attractive city centres, campaigning
and awareness raising to change mobility
behaviour, clean(er) vehicles, ITS and technological
innovation.
44 http://civitas.eu/index.php?id=69; 2012
45 David Banister (2008), ‘The sustainable mobility
paradigm’, Transport Policy, vol. 15, pp. 78.
Sustainable Urban Mobility
50
Many cities are aware that no single strategy
is sufficient”.46 Cities acknowledge the
importance of sustainable urban mobility
and are creating or implementing plans
toward sustainable urban mobility systems
in the future. However, there appear to be
discrepancies between long term visions or
ambitions on the one hand and the actual
implementation of policy measures and their
results on the other.47
sufficiently familiar with these research and
development results. Although numerous
new mobility optimisation measures are
available, their practical implementation is
often very complex and/or time consuming.51
One of the most pertinent notions of
urban research recently has been sketched
by Banister (2008) who pointed out the
‘schizophrenic paths’ of cities with regard to
sustainable mobility: it is clear that action is
needed but no effective action is undertaken
to remedy the current situation.52 According
Sustainable urban mobility has been on
the European agenda since the early-1990s,
when the European Commission unveiled
its first plans on road pricing. Especially the
European Commission, strongly encouraged
by the European Parliament, has a clear
vision on a new type of urban mobility
which is a defining focus for this report.48
The transitional focus of the European
Commission and the specific issues related
to this transition in urban areas (walking,
cycling, road pricing, ITS, technology,
behavioural change) set an ambitious target
for the coming decades. Specific attention
in the policy documents of the European
Commission of the last decade49 is to
public transport, (the promotion of) clean
vehicles and alternative energies, modal
shift, reducing congestion, pollution and
accidents, the integrated approach, sharing
experience and knowledge and reducing the
use of ‘conventionally-fuelled’ cars in urban
mobility.
46 John Pucher and Ralph Buehler (2010); ‘Walking and
Cycling for Healthy Cities’, Built Environment, vol.
36, no. 4, p. 415. See also David Banister (2008), ‘The
sustainable mobility paradigm’, Transport Policy, vol.
15, pp. 73-80.
47 For more information, see Chapter 2 or the ‘State of
the Art Mobility Policy’ in Part II of this KRA
48 The European Commission defines sustainable
urban mobility as: “the necessary transition from
a primarily car based personal mobility in cities to a
mobility based on walking and cycling, high quality public
transport and less-used and cleaner passenger vehicles is
the central strategic challenge for cities in the decades to
come”.
49 See for example COM (2001)370 final: ‘European
transport policy for 2010: time to decide’,
COM(2007)551 final: ‘Green Paper: Towards a new
culture for urban mobility’, COM(2009)490 final:
‘Action Plan on Urban Mobility’ and COM(2011)144
final: ‘White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European
There are also applied research and
dissemination projects on a European scale.
As regards these projects a great deal of
effort has been put into the dissemination
of finished projects´ results50 but not all
municipal councils and self-administrations
responsible for urban transportation are
Transport Area – Towards a competitive and
resource efficient transport system’
50 Of for example CIVITAS
51 COM(2008) 887 final
52 David Banister (2005), ‘Unsustainable Transport: City
Transport in the New Century’, Routledge, London,
p. 234.
51
Sustainable Urban Mobility
to Banister it is only through understanding
and acceptance by the people in cities
themselves that sustainable mobility will
succeed as playing a central role in the future
of sustainable cities. 53
A comparison of research agendas on
sustainable (urban) mobility and transport
since the 1990s54 has been presented by
Stead in Chapter 3. While these agendas
have different starting points and methods,
a number of common themes emerge that
many European cities are trying to address:
– Urban space and scale
– Regulation and pricing
– Lifestyle and behaviour
– ITS and vehicle technology
–Governance
53 David Banister (2008), ‘The sustainable mobility
paradigm’, Transport Policy, vol. 15, pp. 73-80.
54 Hensher (1993), Knowles (1993), Banister et al. (2000),
Kennedy et al. (2005), Goldman & Gorham (2006),
Nijkamp (2006), and Joint Programming Initiative
Urban Europe (2011)
55 As regards urban freight, see Joint Programming
Initiative Urban Europe, 2011, “Strategic Research
Framework”, pp. 37-41 about the ‘connected city
These themes are of course not exhaustive.
The issue of urban freight and city logistics
is an important issue which is not touched
upon in this report.55 From the review of the
academic literature, four cross-cutting areas
are identified where there is substantial
scope for pushing forward existing research
boundaries related to sustainable urban
transport: urban research could especially
help to make city policies more integrated,
robust/resilient, attractive and competitive56.
Clearly, it is important that the right
questions are asked. According to this
report it is of utmost importance that cities
themselves build the transition agenda’s,
from basic and applied research, to R&D and
mainstreaming; from niches to regime and
landscape. This report, with the research
needs and questions, is therefore drawn
up in close collaboration between urban
research and policy practice, both from a
policy and practice point of view. The state
of the art shows that cities are coping with
many similar challenges but that responses
are different depending on the local context.
Research-based practical solutions in a
comprehensive European (applied) knowledge
and research programme would really help
European cities and metropolitan areas more
as compared to the current situation.
2050’. As regards freight and city logistics see
Goldman T & Gorham R, 2006, “Sustainable Urban
Transport: Four innovative directions” Technology
4.3 Research questions and needs
from practice and research
in Society, 28(1-2), 261-273 and Siemens, 2011,
“Green light for sustainable urban development”
and “Sustainable Urban Infrastructure: London
Edition, a view to 2025”, http://www.siemens.
com/entry/cc/features/sustainablecities/all/pdf/
SustainableUrbanInfrastructure-StudyLondon.pdf
56 For more information, see Chapter 3 or the ‘State of
the Art Research’ in Part II of this KRA.
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Within the broad frame of sustainable urban
mobility four themes can be identified:
urban space & scale, regulation & pricing,
lifestyle & behaviour and ITS & technology.
Additionally, a fifth and overarching theme
can be identified: the ‘management’ of the
integrated approach: governance. Governance
52
www.eltis.org
recurs as an overarching theme as it is related
to all key themes. Per theme, research needs
stemming from urban research and practice
are summed up in the text boxes below.
All questions per theme, divided between
research and practice, can be found in the
Appendix of this chapter.
theme, -local- authorities have some powerful
tools to reduce unwanted modes of transport
and stimulate the use of alternative mobility.
Examples are congestion schemes, road
pricing, parking policies, subsidising public
transport, low emission or environmental
zones and regulation and subsidy for cleaner
vehicles.
The first theme ‘urban space & scale’57 relates
to all measures and interventions that
concern the physical design of a city. What
is the influence of the developments of new
areas, densification of existing parts of the
city and reallocation of street spaces (e.g.
bicycle paths instead of parking spaces) to
the daily urban systems in European cities?
As physical interventions are of a permanent
character, most interventions classified
within the theme’ ‘urban space’ therefore
could be classified as ‘hard’ measures.
57 For more information on this theme, see (for
research) the academic position paper of Van Wee
& Handy and (for practice) the Urban Mobility
Practices from Bratislava (SK), Hamburg Hafencity
(DE), Hradec Králové (CZ), Poznan (PL), Rethymnon
(GR) and The Hague (NL)
58 For more information on this theme, see (for
research) the academic position paper of Nash &
Whitelegg and (for practice) the Urban Mobility
Practices from London (UK), Oslo (NO) and
By ‘regulation and pricing’58, the second
Stockholm (SE).
53
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Table 6 Research Needs Urban Space & Scale
Theme
Research
Research needs
Practice
Research needs
Urban Space & Scale
• Impact of land use policies on mobility
behaviour.
• The role of self-selection.
• Evaluation of accessibility effects.
• Monetary analysis of land use policies.
• Influence of information and
communications technologies (ICT).
• Evaluation of land-use policies.
• New forms of infrastructure.
• Required transport links.
• National infrastructure
requirements versus unique
individual urban context.
Table 7 Research Needs Regulation & Pricing
Theme
Research
Research needs
Practice
Research needs
Regulation & Pricing
• Impact of pricing and regulation on the
urban economy, on urban decentralisation,
sprawl and job losses from existing urban
centres.
• Impacts of public transport pricing and
parking policies on these same phenomena
• Long term impacts on land-use and spatial
structure.
• Effects on affordability of modes of
transport.
• Public and political acceptance of regulation
an pricing.
• Efficiency and equity of pricing instruments.
• Feasibility of full social cost pricing .
• Better balance between.
regulation and pricing measures
• Public and political acceptance.
• Effect of promotional campaigns
for more sustainable modes of
transport without regulatory
measures at the same time.
Regarding the theme ‘‘lifestyle & behaviour’,59
one should think of any policy that aims to
obtain behavioural change towards more
sustainable transport choices. This could
59 For more information on this theme, see (for
research) the academic position paper of Goodwin
be awareness raising campaigns, providing
information about alternatives, training and
education programmes or assisting large
companies in setting up mobility plans. As
these ‘softer’ measures are often easier to be
taken (in terms of support, planning, finances
and time) there are there many examples of
these measures across Europe.
and (for practice) the Urban Mobility Practices from
Copenhagen (DK), Porto (PT), Sevilla (ES), Vilnius (LT)
and Worcestershire (UK).
Sustainable Urban Mobility
The theme ‘ITS & Technology’60 is oriented
towards the question how cities can make
54
Table 8 Research Needs Lifestyle & Behaviour
Theme
Research
Research needs
Practice
Research needs
Lifestyle & Behaviour
• Changes or transitions in household
composition and mobility behaviour.
• Long-run effects of initiatives on changing
mobility behaviour.
• interaction between car ownership and
other travel options.
• the impact of lifestyle on travel behaviour.
• impact of promotional
campaigns.
• results of mobility management
measures on the long term.
• transferability of successful
practices.
• definition of target groups.
• impact of visitors’/tourists’
behaviour.
• information and education.
• influencing mobility behaviour
of citizens.
• societal developments (e.g.
ageing) and mobility behaviour.
Table 9 Research Needs ITS & Technology
Theme
Research
Research needs
Practice
Research needs
ITS & Technology
• Development of new mobility management
methods.
• Data collection, data integration.
• New IT systems.
• Transition to electric vehicles.
• Shared means of transport.
• Information to overhaul the
fleet of public transport system.
• Which kind of green fuel?
• How to implement policy after
co-financed pilot/experimental
project?
• New survey methodology.
• New tool analysis area and
evaluation processes mobility/
modal split.
• Optimisation of user experience,
data and graph quality,
e-government applications and
routing algorithms.
best use of the (existing) technological
opportunities. Partly, this theme covers
current technological innovations such
as cleaner cars and public transport. Next
to these, other developments such as
teleworking or teleshopping and providing
60 For more information on this theme, see (for
research) the academic position paper of
Sitavancova and (for practice) the Urban Mobility
Practices from Bucharest (RO), Sofia (BL), Utrecht
(NL) and Vienna (AT).
55
Sustainable Urban Mobility
real-time information for users of public
transport are also phenomena that are part of
this theme.
stakeholders, an analysis has been made
combining the aforementioned research
needs from research and practice.
The theme ‘Governance’61 has a particular
position in this report as it is a more
overarching theme and not as specified
as the other themes. However, during the
development process it became clear that
the theme is considered very important by
the urban policy-makers. Many research
needs and questions from other themes
could be characterised as governance issues
as well and they are all very much related
to the ‘how’-question: it is not the question
what to change, but (depending on the
actual situation) how this change could be
started, implemented and brought further
in the cities and metropolitan areas. The
notion of ‘governance’ also implies parting
from tradition, top-down government and
including bottom-up initiatives, industrial
initiatives, innovative partnerships and the
involvement of all relevant stakeholders. 62
This leads to a number of notions regarding
sustainable urban mobility, both general
(and concerning the overarching theme
‘governance’) and more specific with a focus
on one of the main themes. Every section is
concluded by a small text box summing up
the most relevant research priorities based on
urban practice.63
4.4Analysis
Based upon the (desk) research, the academic
position papers, and input from urban
practitioners, academic researchers and other
61 For more information on this theme, see (for
research) the academic position paper of Stead
and (for practice) the Urban Mobility Practices from
Hannover (DE) and Zürich (CH).
62 See also Banister’s ‘schizophrenic paths’ (2005, pp.
234) of cities with regard to sustainable mobility: it is
clear that action is needed but no effective action is
undertaken to remedy the current situation.
General notions
Unsurprisingly, most research has a higher
level of abstraction and a wider scope
regarding sustainable urban mobility than
urban practice. Policy measures are more
specific and on a micro-level. Likewise, the
focus upon themes within urban mobility is
rather different. Research is well advanced on
the theme ‘Regulation & Pricing’. However, the
research needs that stem from urban practice
are not in this field particularly, but rather on
the themes ‘Urban Space & Scale’, ‘Lifestyle &
Behaviour’ and ‘Governance’. The orientation
of urban policy-makers seems to be towards
‘soft’ measures (like behavioural campaigns)
and (vulnerable to the economic crisis) landuse policies. The academic urban research
however seems to have a very different
orientation towards ‘hard’ measures and
effects of, for example, road pricing. This puts
academic research in a specific forerunner
position regarding the theme ‘regulation &
pricing’, but at the same time shows that
research is not too much oriented towards
the needs of decision-makers in cities (i.e.
the requirements for implementing these
regulation & pricing policies).
63 The analysis is summarised in an overview table in
the Appendix of this chapter.
Sustainable Urban Mobility
56
Table 10 Research Needs Governance
Theme
Research
Research needs
Practice
Research needs
Governance
• ‘packages’ of policies and measures to maximise
synergies between measures.
• Horizontal and vertical policy coordination.
• Cooperation within urban municipalities, at
regional or inter-authorial level?
• Use of knowledge and information.
•Benchmarking.
• Best practices.
• Processes of policy transfer.
• Policy experimentation and innovation in urban
transport policy.
• Visions of sustainable urban mobility: differences
between sectors.
• How to integrate mobility
development strategies
with other urban
development policy areas,
e.g. environment, public
lighting, reinforcing city
cultural identity.
• How to optimise processes
of integrated planning
and decision-making
governance?
• What are the requirements
for an integrated
sustainable urban mobility
plan?
• On which scale is mobility
planning the most
effective?
Governance
future of their city calibrated upon a mobility
based upon walking and cycling, high quality
public transport and less-used and cleaner
passenger vehicles. As indicated ‘governance’
is a concept that should be re-thought: it
implies not only the traditional top-down
model but also includes new and more
inclusive bottom-up initiatives, industrial
initiatives, innovative partnerships and the
involvement of all relevant stakeholders. In
other words: there is a systematic change
within urban societies where bottom-up and
industrial initiatives are becoming more and
more important, especially within the theme
of sustainable urban mobility. Within the
theme governance, there are several issues
such as demographic changes (e.g. ageing
societies), environmental justice, social equity
and accessibility that should be taken into
account more clearly in both research and
practice. The notion of the possible conflict
The theme ‘governance’ has a peculiar
position in this Knowledge and Research
Agenda, in ways that it is more or less
overarching and not as easily specified as
(most of) the other themes. Furthermore,
many research needs identified within
the other themes of this KRA do link
with governance issues. For example, the
(governmental) scale on which measures
covered in the theme Regulation & Pricing
should be decided upon is hotly debated and
questioned. In both research and practice
in the field of sustainable urban mobility
it is remarkable how the significance of
the concept of ‘governance’ has increased
in the last years. City practitioners and
policy-makers are looking for new forms
of deliberation and citizen involvement to
have the full endorsement for implementing
transitional measures to aim for a sustainable
57
Sustainable Urban Mobility
and modal. Despite the difficulties and
the different ways of using such a wide
term,cities seem to realise the “key lesson
that no single strategy is sufficient”.64 In
conceptual terms, there is a manifold
use of for example the terms ‘integrated
approach’, (or smart, or sustainable)
which raises questions, namely; what
are the requirements for integrated
planning, and more important, how to
establish integrated sustainable urban
mobility planning? On which fields is
cooperation most important; within
urban municipalities (integration between
mobility planning and land use, urban
planning, health etc.); on regional levels
or between levels of government. An
important question in research is how
‘packages’ of policies can be developed
and implemented to maximise synergies
between measures. The concept is mostly
used in ‘catch-all’ phrases to explain the
cities’ commitment to involving as many
different sectors, layers of government
and interest groups as possible. However,
the current institutional structures make
it difficult to come up with common
solutions, also in the field of sustainable
urban mobility. Also other concepts such
as ‘smart’ and ‘sustainable’ are undisputed
concepts in long-term policies but the
actual notion of these concepts for shortterm policies and projects is unclear for
many policy-makers.
www.eltis.org
between spatial (or mobility) function of an
urban area versus the interests of citizens
living in that same area should be addressed
from the very first stages of policy making.
1 One of the most important issues
underlying this theme is the (call for) an
integrated approach on urban mobility
policy. It is vital to note that ‘the integrated
approach’ can have many different forms
of integrated policymaking; namely
horizontal, vertical, spatial, temporal,
64 John Pucher and Ralph Buehler (2010); ‘Walking and
Cycling for Healthy Cities’, Built Environment, vol.
36, no. 4, p. 415. See also David Banister (2008), ‘The
sustainable mobility paradigm’, Transport Policy, vol.
2 Long term ambitions and investments
versus short term plans and
implementation Cities recognise the
importance of sustainable urban
mobility and are already forming plans
to implement sustainable urban mobility
15, pp. 73-80.
Sustainable Urban Mobility
58
Table 11 Integrated Research Needs Governance
Theme
Research needs
Governance
•
•
•
•
Integrated approach.
Policy packaging.
Coherence between long term ambitions and implementation.
Transferability of urban mobility policy.
systems in the coming decades. However,
there appears to be a discrepancy
between long term visions or ambitions
and the actual policy measures that are
implemented. Another pressing issue
according to policy makers regards the
often short term focus of their urban
politicians. The transition towards a
sustainable urban mobility system requires
long term planning and investment, while
this can be impeded by decision making
of politicians looking for a short term
political gain, or the shift of urban politics
after elections. The main question here
is: How to maintain long term vision (and
associated implementation) in the midst
of political change? Obviously, technology
and available budgets play their role in
these implementation issues as well.
of ‘how’ successful policy transfer could be
established.
Urban Space & Scale
Within the theme ‘Urban Space & Scale’, the
wider scope of research compared to urban
policy is clearly seen. While most emphasis
in cities lies on infrastructural measures,
research focuses on land use planning and
development. The higher level of abstraction
is shown by the way land use planning (and
its impact on mobility) is perceived by the
different actors. Cities expect measures
in land use planning to have a causal
relationship with mobility reduction, energy
efficiency and less car use, while in research,
this causal relationship is problematised.
4 Another point of concern is the spatial focus
of research. Much research is dedicated
to the situation in the United States, and
less to European cities. Policy practice
on the other hand, seems not too much
oriented towards the situation in cities in
the United States of America (USA) but
mainly looks to the European examples in
the field. The significance and quality of U.S.
research is unchallenged. However, as the
U.S.A-European combination of academic
researchers Handy and Van Wee already
acknowledge in their position paper66, there
3 In recent years, a lot of effort has been
made into the dissemination of research
results and successful policy and projects.
It has however been proven to be very
difficult to transfer policy from one city to
the other, even though cities are coping
with many similar challenges. Although
numerous new mobility optimisation
measures are available, their practical
implementation still takes too long.65
Therefore, the question of transferability
of policy practice (and to a lesser extent
research) should be critically reviewed, and
research should be dedicated to the issue
65 COM(2008) 887 final
59
Sustainable Urban Mobility
are major differences between EU and U.S.
cities in their conditions for sustainable urban
mobility. Among the differing conditions are
the much higher fuel prices in EU countries,
a more extensive public transport network,
a more explicit urban planning tradition
and more focus on policy intervention and
behavioural change in Europe67. The specific
and disproportional focus on U.S. cities is
therefore questionable. The specific urban
form of the European context (often historic,
66 See the position paper Van Wee/Handy in Part II of
this KRA.
67 Also North America is more focused on economic
growth and energy supply as compared to Europe,
which is more concerned with environmental issues
in a broader context. Further, it can be said that, in
general, the role of governmental bodies in planning
is traditionally larger in the EU and the citizens in
U.S.A. are more private-car oriented. Slow modes
are much more important in most European cities
as compared to the Northern American context. See
also position paper Prof. Van Wee/Prof. Handy.
Sustainable Urban Mobility
dense and multifunctional city centres and
a large suburban area in varied forms) needs
to be understood in order to successfully
implement an integrated approach between
land use planning and transport policy. Is
this sufficiently done in current research?
5 In order to fulfil some pressing research
needs, there needs to be a firmer connection
made between what is defined here in
the themes ‘Urban Space & Scale’ and
‘Lifestyle & Behaviour. Earlier studies of the
relationship between land use and travel
behaviour often assumed a simple sort
of physical determinism, where the built
environment alone was thought to shape
individual action and behaviour. Later on,
studies began to consider the three-way
relationships between land-use patterns,
the socio-economic profile of individuals
and their travel patterns. More recently still,
investigation in this field also attempts to
incorporate issues of lifestyles and attitudes,
related both to the socio-economic profile
of individuals and also to the choices
60
Table 12 Integrated Research Needs Urban Space & Scale
Theme
Research needs
Urban Space & Scale
• Land use planning and its impact on mobility, urban economy, urban
sprawl.
• A focus on European cities in research on land use planning.
• Research that firmly and subtly reveals the causality between land use
planning and mobility behaviour.
Table 13 Integrated Research Needs Lifestyle & Behaviour
Theme
Research needs
Lifestyle & Behaviour
•
•
•
•
•
Extensive evaluation of measures.
Effectiveness of ‘soft measures’.
Long(er) term results.
Transferability of successful measures.
Full inclusion and implementation in sustainable urban mobility policy.
Table 14 Integrated Research Needs Regulation & Pricing
Theme
Research needs
Regulation & Pricing
• Acceptance of politicians and citizens.
• Combining Pricing and Regulation.
• The right combination of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ measures in urban mobility
policy.
• Urban parking policies (including Park + Ride).
Table 15 Integrated Research Needs ITS & Technology
Theme
Research needs
ITS & Technology
•
•
•
•
Future-proof technologies?
Rebound effects of ICT innovation on mobility.
What role for (urban) governments in ITS & Technology?
Full inclusion and implementation of ICT & Technology in sustainable
urban mobility policy.
Lifestyle & Behaviour
individuals make about their residential
location and mode of transport. Providing
infrastructure, or developing a specific type
of built environment is not enough for
cities to successfully transform to a more
sustainable urban mobility system.
The findings on the theme Lifestyle &
Behaviour prove an interesting case for
European cities. On the one hand, soft
measures, aimed at behavioural change
towards more sustainable transport choices,
61
Sustainable Urban Mobility
such as promotional campaigns, information
about alternatives, setting up company
mobility plans and the like, have received
much attention and following throughout
cities in Europe as an important benefit of
these measures are their low costs compared
to (for example) infrastructural measures.
On the other hand, cities clearly indicate
that they have many research needs in this
field. This discrepancy might be explained
by the relative novelty of this type of policy
measures as a research and policy field in
its own. As stated before, many measures
that could be classified within the theme of
behavioural change are closely tied to policy
regarding land use and infrastructure.
6 Looking at the research needs of European
cities in this theme, many of these are
connected to the (perceived) lack of
extensive evaluation of these measures.
There is uncertainty in urban policy
practice about the effectiveness of soft
measures, and especially the long term
results. Given the fact that this theme
is increasingly important in academic
research as well, the question that rises
is whether the approach and research
themes of research and practice might
not be consistent. Or does the problem lie
in the fact that research results are not
enough, or not clearly enough translated to
urban practitioners?
7 Transferability of successful measures
elsewhere? Soft measures such as
promotional campaigns, information about
alternatives, setting up company mobility
plans and the like have received much
attention and following throughout cities
in Europe. Often visual, catching and ‘fun’,
many of the successful projects are widely
shared. An important issue that arises is
whether these successes are ‘transferable’
to other European cities. Furthermore, in
these projects, it is often not clear how
the pilot project or experiment can be
extended or implemented to achieve wide
scale adaptation.
Regulation & Pricing
As mentioned previously, there is a clear
difference between research and urban
practice in the field of Regulation & Pricing.
Whereas these measures in research are seen
as complementary to each other, cities mainly
seem to search for pricing measures in order
to generate revenue.
8 Road pricing and congestion schemes
have been extensively researched and
evaluated, but there are few (European)
examples of cities that have actually
implemented such schemes, it seems
because there is no political commitment
to implement these controversial
measures. How to increase the acceptance
of both politicians and citizens to these
Regulation & Pricing measures? The case of
Stockholm in the ‘Urban Practice Guide’68
shows that there is no need to search for
citizen approval beforehand for these hard
measures, as long as abundant factual
information is provided and a ‘political
figurehead’ who is in charge believes in
these measures.
68 See EMI’s Urban Practice Guide on Sustainable
Urban Mobility
Sustainable Urban Mobility
62
www.eltis.org
9 Urban parking policies should receive
more attention in research. Urban
practitioners in cities see this as one of
their most important instruments, but
(applied) research on this subject lags
behind. The various measures within
parking policy, and the relating problems
(such as space, competition within and
between cities) should be addressed.
The concept of ‘Park and Ride’ should
also receive more attention; in research
objections are raised against this
development, however, in practice Park and
Ride is still widely applied.
efficient, green vehicle technology. For the
theme ‘ITS & Technology’, it might be the
hardest to bridge the gap between (needs
and questions stemming from) research
and practice. This is seen by the variety of
(types of) questions and the very specific and
technical knowledge required. The question
is whether it is feasible for cities and urban
practitioners to stay up to date of current
innovations and implement these into
sustainable urban mobility policy. It could be
argued that much travel information systems,
for example, could better be developed by
transport companies, app designers and the
like and directly distributed to consumers
(i.e. citizens). The costs of this bottom-up
approach are considerably lower (i.e. a mobile
application instead of real-time information
screens at all public transport stops).
ITS & Technology
An important distinction within the
paragraph has to be made between 1.
Information Technologies, which will
largely influence behaviour, and 2. Fuel
technologies, which focuses on resource
On both Information Technologies and Fuel
63
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Technologies, European cities seem to struggle
with a lack of knowledge and expertise.
This leads to insecurity about assessing
which technologies are ‘future-proof’ and
postponement of necessary investments for
more sustainable mobility. This is also shown
in the many pilot projects and experiments in
this field; large scale implementation of the
tested techniques is scarce.
10Also, there is a gap between research
and practice concerning the expectations
of what ITS & fuel technology will do
for more sustainable urban mobility
in the future. Stead notes that “many
early studies seemed to suggest a huge
potential for change but in practice the
changes were often far less obvious and
more subtle”. The paradigm shift to think
of transportation as ‘an interconnected,
communicating, and cooperation complex
system’ (Sorensen 2010) has not entirely
taken place in European mobility policy.
11The possible ‘rebound effects’ of ICT is
an recurring theme in research; will the
technological innovations indeed reduce
mobility and make the urban mobility
system more sustainable, or will it merely
spread mobility more evenly in terms of
time and space? In cities less attention is
paid to these effects. It seems that cities
focus more on the specific ‘times’ and
‘places’ of mobility streams (thus, focusing
on reducing congestion) than on a general
reduction or more sustainable urban
mobility system.
69 David Banister (2008), ‘The sustainable mobility
4.5 Knowledge and Research
Agenda: next steps
“Sustainable mobility has a central role to play
in the future of sustainable cities, but it is only
through the understanding and acceptance by the
people that it will succeed”69
This report is the result of a year-long intensive
process looking for the research needs of
European cities in the field of sustainable
urban mobility. It can be said that cities and
researchers share largely the same vision of a
green, accessible and sustainable city. However,
in a number of themes policy practice and
research do not speak each other’s language.
This report is an attempt to bridge the gap
between the world of academic research and
urban policy practice and presents directions
for future academic research, based upon the
challenges that practitioners in European cities
are currently facing.
In many cases, urban policy arrangements
or regimes have developed incrementally
over relatively long periods of times and
contain a wide mix of policy instruments
and aims.70 The same can be said regarding
the issue of sustainable urban mobility. Due
to the economic crisis and the outcry for
efficient mobility measures, (city/regional)
governments have become increasingly
interested in how to develop more integrated
strategies for sustainable urban mobility. This
report distinguishes, on the basis of the state
of the art in policy practice and research,
five themes: Urban space & scale, Regulation &
pricing, Lifestyle & behaviour, ITS & technology
and Governance.
paradigm’, Transport Policy, vol. 15, p. 80.
70 Rayner & Howlett, 2009; Wilson, 2000; Gunningham
& Sinclair, 1999
Sustainable Urban Mobility
64
Table A1 Research needs and questions per theme stemming from research and practice
Theme
Urban Space & Scale
Research - research needs and questions
• Can the implementation of new land use policies significantly change mobility
behaviour? And if so, how, and in conjunction with which other policies?
• How significant is the role of self-selection with respect to residential and
destination choice, and to what extent does this role moderate the effects of
land-use policies?
• What are appropriate methods for evaluating the accessibility effects of landuse policies?
• Can all of the pros and cons of land-use policies be quantified and expressed in
monetary terms (and thus be evaluated by Cost-Benefit Analysis)? If so, how?
• How do information and communications technologies (ICT) shape residential
location choice, destination choice, and other aspects of travel behaviour, and
how are these effects evolving over time?
• How can land-use policies be evaluated according to a much broader range of
effects than is currently common, including accessibility and other effects?
Practice - research needs and questions
• Research on innovative new forms of infrastructure (Copenhagen).
• Research on the required transport links (and relationship) between city and
satellite settlements (Rethymnon).
• How can cities cope with the se standardised national infrastructural
requirements (for example the strict national rules in Italy on the design of
bicycle paths); and their own unique urban space? Is this situation comparable
to other European countries? (CYCLO)
Shutterstock 1269131
65
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Table A1 Research needs and questions per theme stemming from research and practice
Theme
Regulation & Pricing
Research - research needs and questions
• What would be the impact of an appropriate package of pricing and regulation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
measures across all modes on land use and the urban economy? What are the
impacts of road pricing on urban decentralisation, on sprawl and/or job losses
from existing urban centres?
What are the impacts of public transport pricing and parking policies on these
same phenomena (urban decentralisation, sprawl and/or job losses from
existing urban centres)?
What are the long-term impacts of regulation and pricing on land-use and
spatial structure?
How can a package of measures be designed to ensure affordability, in terms of
the package of taxes, charges and expenditure?
How can a package be designed and implemented to attract public and political
acceptability?
Further research on the efficiency and equity of pricing instruments, and the
acceptability of fundamental changes in the pricing and financing of transport.
To what extent is full social cost pricing achievable in practice? Will this
inherently lead to a more sustainable transport system? And what are the
implications of full social cost pricing for the growth of mobility, technological
change and the financing of public transport?
Are there combinations of strategies that can achieve more sustainable patterns
of mobility if full social cost pricing is not practical?
Practice - research needs and questions
• How can urban municipalities ensure a better balance between regulation and
pricing measures? And what is needed in order to convince cities that measures
of regulation and pricing are an essential part of truly committed urban mobility
policy?
• How to make bold choices in regulatory and fiscal measures –that will make
a substantial contribution to reducing urban car use- that will be accepted by
society?
• Do promotional campaigns (carrots) have an effect without regulatory measures
? Is the effect significantly stronger when carrots and sticks are combined in
sustainable urban mobility policy?
Sustainable Urban Mobility
66
Table A1 Research needs and questions per theme stemming from research and practice
Theme
Lifestyle & Behaviour
Research - research needs and questions
• How to make best use of transitions in family composition and lifestyle in
establishing successful policy to change mobility behaviour?
• What are the long-run effects of ‘real world’ sustainable transport initiatives,
including the trajectory that these will take as they build up over time as an
increasing proportion of the population experiences changes in their personal
circumstances?
• How to incorporate the influence of and on car ownership in dynamic
interaction with other travel choices, instead of taken it as a given condition
which has a one-way effect on car use?
• How will a chosen lifestyle condition the choice of travel behaviour?
• How far may lifestyles themselves be chosen in such a way as to provide for
different transport arrangements?
Practice - research needs and questions
• How to measure the impact of promotional campaigns? Can quantitative data
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
and/or tangible results be derived of such policy measures/ campaigns? (The
Hague)
What are the results of mobility management measures on the long(er) term?
And how can momentary success (of a campaign, for example) be preserved?
To what extent are successful practices transferrable to other placed? What
measures work best? Are there geographical differences between the type of
measures and success rates?
What is the effectiveness of mobility management measures with regards to
mobility behaviour, emission reductions and costs? (Zürich)
How can people in a newly developed environment be influenced to make use
of “low energy” mobility? And what prohibits people from using the system at
present or possibly in the long run? (Hamburg)
How to define specific target groups when working with behavioural change?
(Copenhagen)
How can measures clustered around mobility behaviour best take into account
broad developments such as the ageing society? (Sofia)
Can visitors of the city trigger citizens to change their mobility behaviour (e.g.
cycling tourists) (CYCLO)
What measures can be taken to increase citizens’ interest in cycling in their
city? How can urban design (or more specifically the design of a shared bicycle
system) increase citizens’ interest to cycle? (CYCLO)
To what extent are cities capable of influencing the mobility behaviour of their
citizens, visitors and companies?
How can a municipality make better use of ‘software’ (versus ‘hardware’) or
mobility management measures (versus infrastructural measures) to change its
citizens mobility behaviour? (The Hague)
How can cities best prepare for changes in mobility? How to obtain better
knowledge about actual mobility choices of citizens? (Rethymnon)
67
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Table A1 Research needs and questions per theme stemming from research and practice
Theme
ITS & Technology
Research - research needs and questions
• Does ICT act as a brake or an accelerator in the process on limits to travel? Some
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
travel demand can be reduced by ICT but it can also lead to other types of trips?
What is the balance between substitutive and complementary effects of ICT
use?
How can transport users best make use of the current information that is
available (and will be even more abundant in the future)? Which way will the
messages for all users of urban transport systems be given priorities, so that
they are provided with real-time information?
How can current urban transport management systems be adjusted to new
needs of a better informed society?
How can e.g. social network based data be calibrated, or errors be identified?
How to maintain sustainable data flow that models and automated urban
control systems work with?
How can extensive amounts of new data types be transformed into information,
and provided where and when needed for decision support in urban areas?
Which computational methods can be devised in order to blur the local
information and at the same time still keep it useful?
Why do individuals in urban areas share data and experience, and what are the
incentives? What type of data will be captured and shared, and what type of
data needs protection?
What are the implementation principles and methods of technologies necessary
for electro-mobility expansion in urban areas?
What are the safety issues of electro-mobility expansion? How to eliminate
them?
How will traffic management systems in urban areas and information systems
have to be modified in response to the expansion of electro-mobility?
What are the most efficient methods of promoting car sharing? Are these
methods universal; will they work the same way in all regions and city types?
How can real-time situational awareness and decision support systems be
optimised for shared-car systems purpose?
Practice - research needs and questions
• When is a good time to overhaul the stock of the public transport system?
• Which kind of green fuel will be ‘the best fuel’ in the future?
• How to implement policy after a co-financed pilot project?
• How to compare the technical specifications of bicycles and shared bicycle
systems, so that cities can make an informed choice on choosing a specific
system? (CYCLO)
• What are new ways for survey methodology oriented to traffic and transport
services?
• How to create a new tool for analysis of the area and evaluation processes for
mobility and modal split (Bratislava)
• The City of Vienna indicates that their main topics of research are common
data interfaces and the optimisation of user experience, data and graph quality,
e-government applications and routing algorithms
Intelligent Energy - Europe (IEE) Programme,
73 There are already activities in this field, see http://
www.mobilityplans.eu/index.php?ID1=4&id=13,
which is managed by the Executive Agency for
financed by the European Union under the
Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI); 2012.
Sustainable Urban Mobility
68
Table A1 Research needs and questions per theme stemming from research and practice
Theme
Governance
Research - research needs and questions
• How can ‘packages’ of policies be developed and implemented to maximise
synergies between measures?
• How can policy coordination be achieved horizontally and vertically between
public and private actors, and between different levels of government.?
• How can integrated public transport be promoted (e.g. ticketing, timetabling,
information), particularly across administrative boundaries and between
different transport providers?
• On which fields is cooperation most important; within urban municipalities
(integration between mobility planning and land use, urban planning, health
etc.); on regional levels or on inter-authorial levels?
• How are sub-national governments using benchmarking in the field of transport
policy? What are the impacts (both directly and indirectly) of benchmarking
on policy change in Europe? To what extent has benchmarking enhanced
collaboration between different organisations involved in urban transport
policy?
• Can the use of knowledge and information be given more weight in policymaking in the transport sector? If so, how? Is it possible to identify how
indicators have influenced the beliefs and expectations of domestic actors and
have these in turn affected strategies and preferences of domestic actors?
• How and to what extent are best practices used by practitioners? Are certain
types of practices more transferable than others? Are there common principles
(as opposed to best practices) associated with sustainable urban transport
policies? Does the transfer of the same example of practice lead to different
results (and impacts) as a consequence of different governance contexts?
• How can broad policy packages be implemented where they require cooperation
between a range of different sectors and agencies? How can policy agendas
in different sectors be aligned to promote more sustainable patterns of urban
transport? What incentives can be used to promote the development of policy
packages?
• To what extent are processes of policy transfer influenced by path dependency
and national (or sub-national) policy preferences? Are certain types of policy
measures more transferable than others (e.g. ideas, concepts, goals, instruments
or programmes)? Is there any evidence of policy convergence in the field of
sustainable urban transport policy as a result of increased policy transfer?
• What type of conditions and instruments can help to promote policy
experimentation and innovation in urban transport policy? How can successful
experimentation and innovation be mainstreamed? To what extent does the
autonomy of sub-national government influence the degree of experimentation
and innovation that takes place?
• How do visions of sustainable urban development differ between different
interest sectors? How wide are these differences in visions between cities across
Europe? What are the expectations of different actors involved in developing
visions of sustainable urban transport and to what extent do these expectations
change during the vision-making process?
Practice - research needs and questions
• How to integrate mobility development strategies into other urban development
policy areas like environment, tourism, economic development, etc.? (in Sofia)
• How to optimise processes of integrated planning and decision making/
governance?
• What are the requirements for integrated sustainable urban mobility plans?73
• As (functional) urban areas do not necessarily correspond with municipal
borders, on which scale is mobility planning most effective?
69
Sustainable Urban Mobility
The next table presents an overview of the analysis presented in paragraph 4.4, in which the
most striking differences and commonalities between the two worlds of research and practice
are presented.
Table A2 Overview table of the synthesis/analysis
Theme
Research
Practice
Urban Space & Scale
• Spatial focus.
• problematises land use planning as a
solution to reduce mobility.
• infrastructural focus.
• expects land use planning to
have a causal relationship with
mobility reduction, energy
efficiency, less car use.
• land use planning effects
mobility behaviour.
• Relationship land use, self-selection
effects and mobility behaviour.
Lifestyle & Behaviour
• (Long term) effectiveness of ‘soft
measures’?
• Transferability of policies.
• What moments (life events) are the
most successful for a change of mobility
behaviour?
Regulation & Pricing
ITS (information) &
Technology (fuel)
Governance
• Large amount of research devoted to
pricing.
• Importance of combination of both
regulation & pricing measures; policy
packaging.
• Park + Ride; a solution?
• Variety of instruments.
• Political reluctance to
implement pricing schemes.
• Focus on parking policies.
• Pricing as a source of revenue.
• Specific questions.
• Rebound effects? (seeing urban mobility
as a whole)
• Expectations tempered due to outcome in
urban practice.
• Cleaner fuels do not solve congestion or
parking problems.
• Lack of knowledge/expertise?
• Emphasis on specific time and
place (congestion problems).
• High expectations of fuel
technology.
• Social equity, accessibility.
• Environmental justice.
• Functions mobility system
versus citizens’ interests.
• Integrated approach.
• Transferability of policies and
practice?
• Integrated approach.
• Transferability of policies and practice?
Sustainable Urban Mobility
• (Long term) effectiveness and
results?
• Transferability of city practices.
• Popular policy tool.
• From pilots/ experiments to
policy implementation.
70
• Park + Ride widely implemented.
• Parking (space, competiveness,
differentiation within parking
policy measures).
• Is the urban level the right
governmental scale for
regulation & pricing policy?
• Insecurity about future stability
of technologies, of large
investments.
• ITS; bottom-up or top-down?
Table A3 List of stakeholder meetings organised/contributed/attended by EMI
Meeting
Date
Location
Participants
Meeting UITP
31.03.2011
Brussels, Belgium.
Other stakeholders.
Meeting POLIS
31.03.2011
30.05.2011
Brussels, Belgium.
Other stakeholders.
Smart Cities and
Communities Initiative
Launch Conference
21.06.2011
Brussels, Belgium.
Researchers, politicians,
other stakeholders.
URBAN Intergroup: Urban
dimension in the White
Paper on Transport
22.06.2011
Brussels, Belgium.
European politicians, other
stakeholders.
EMI-POLIS workshop
30.06.2011
Brussels, Belgium.
Urban practitioners,
researchers, other
stakeholders.
Transport Information Day
on Sustainable Surface
Transport Agenda
19.07.2011
Brussels, Belgium.
Researchers, other
stakeholders.
Interview Mr. Frits
Lintmeijer, Vice-Mayor
Utrecht, Chairman
Eurocities Mobility Forum
28.07.2011
Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Urban politician.
VOC symposium Openbaar
vervoer en de stad
02.09.2011
Tilburg, the Netherlands.
Urban practitioners, other
stakeholders.
Workshop ‘Effective
solutions for green urban
transport – Learning from
CIVITAS cities”
13.09.2011
Brussels, Belgium.
Urban practitioners,
researchers, Europeanlevel practitioners, other
stakeholders.
Smart2Wheels
22.09.2011
Brussels, Belgium.
Urban practitioners,
researchers, Europeanlevel practitioners, other
stakeholders.
EMI science expert
meeting
27.09.2011
The Hague, the
Netherlands.
Researchers, other
stakeholders.
Eurocities Mobility Forum
07.10.2011
Mannheim, Germany.
Urban practitioners,
European-level
practitioners, other
stakeholders.
71
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Meeting
Date
Location
Participants
KPVV - ‘Duurzame mobiliteit in
de EU: Choose How You Move
in Worcestershire – succesvolle
gedragsverandering’.
03.11.2011
Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Urban practitioners, other
stakeholders.
JIDFE 2011 (Journées Ile-de-France
Europe)
Conference ‘The city of the future’
08.11.2011
Brussels, Belgium.
Urban practitioners,
politicians, Europeanlevel practitioners, other
stakeholders.
‘Kenniscongres Europa 2011’
16.11.2011
Helmond, the
Netherlands.
Urban practitioners, other
stakeholders.
Urban Intergroup presentation EMI
Knowledge and Research Agenda
17.11.2011
Strasbourg, France.
European politicians, other
stakeholders.
DBR conference
21.11.2011
Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Researchers, other
stakeholders.
Meeting Cabinet Commissioner
Kallas
08.12.2011
Brussels, Belgium.
European-level practitioners.
Meeting DG Move
08.12.2011
Brussels, Belgium.
European-level practitioners.
MobilTUM paper presentation
19.03.2012
20.03.2012
Munich, Germany.
Researchers.
CYCLO meeting, presentation EMI
Knowledge and Research Agenda
22.03.2012
Kamnik, Slovenia.
Urban practitioners.
CORPUS - Mobility Workshop
‘Policy meets Research’, session
Research Agendas. Presentation
EMI Knowledge and Research
Agenda
20.04.2012
Szentendre, Hungary.
Researchers, urban
practitioners.
On the basis of the actual problems in
implementation in the European cities
research questions and research needs
have been formulated by city/regional
policy practitioners and (practice-based)
researchers. As sketched, the European
Commission in its 2011 White Paper on
transport has ambitious targets for European
cities and metropolitan areas. However, the
next phase of research should focus on how
to bring the development towards sustainable
Sustainable Urban Mobility
urban mobility further by answering the
fundamental research questions and research
needs from policy implementation.
The fundamental research needs and
questions (4.3 and 4.4) can be addressed
in a comprehensive future (applied) ‘meta’
knowledge and research programme on the
key themes and research needs, in close
collaboration with the cities. Also, more
specific research can be conducted within
72
Appendix Synthesis
the different themes. European cities and
urban areas can be strengthened by means
of integrated, coordinated and overarching
knowledge on sustainable urban mobility.
The production of this (new) knowledge
contributes to the creation of new and (more)
sustainable urban mobility systems.
In this appendix, a list of research needs and
questions stemming from both research and
practice will be summed up. These needs
and questions were developed in close
cooperation with both urban practitioners71
and academic researchers72.
With the collaboration of urban research and
urban practice it is more and more possible
to answer how actors in cities and urban
areas in their policies for sustainable urban
mobility strive for a transition towards a
mobility based on walking and cycling, high
quality public transport and less-used and
cleaner passenger vehicles, while preserving
the social and economic achievements of
their current mobility systems.
These research questions and needs
functioned as a step-up to paragraph 4.3 in
which the most important notions of the
synthesis are listed.
Subsequently, an overview table of the
analysis in paragraph 4.4 is presented, in
which the most striking differences and
commonalities between the two worlds of
research and practice are presented.
EMI asks all the cities, regions, universities,
research institutes and other stakeholders
to support this quest for integrated and
multidisciplinary research. Therefore, we
kindly invite all stakeholders involved
to give their views and support and
(potentially) join the consortium for (a
multiannual programme for) future applied
research in the field of sustainable urban
mobility based on the research needs of
European cities and metropolitan areas.
71 Through the EMI-POLIS workshop in June 2011,
e-mail contacts with various urban practitioners
for the State of the Art Urban Practice, the Urban
Please contact us via info@emi-network.eu
Practice Guide, Eurocities Mobility Forum, CYCLO
meeting, meeting URBAN Intergroup of the
European Parliament etc.
72 Through the EMI expert meeting in September
2011, the position papers of Van Wee & Handy,
Sitavancova, Stead, Goodwin and Nash &
Whitelegg, contributions of Prof. dr. Wim Hafkamp,
MobilTUM2012 scientific conference, CORPUS
Mobility Workshop
73
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Urb
Accessibility, connec
Sustainable Urban Mobility
74
Bibliography Sustainable Urban Mobility
A
Official documents:
European Commission
COM (2010) 2020 (final): ‘Europe 2020: A
Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive
Growth’, 03.03.2010.
COM (92) 494 (final): ‘The Future Development of
the Common Transport Policy: A Global Approach
to the Construction of a Community Framework
for Sustainable Mobility - White Paper’, 2.12.1992.
COM (2011) 571 (final): ‘Roadmap to a Resource
Efficient Europe’, 20.09.2011.
COM (2011) 109 (final): ‘Energy Efficiency Plan
2011’, 08.03.2011.
COM (95) 601 (final): ‘The Citizens’ Network
- Fulfilling the potential of public passenger
transport in Europe’, 29.11.1995.
COM (2011) 144 (final): ‘White Paper, Roadmap
to a Single European Transport Area – Towards
a competitive and resource efficient transport
system’, 28.03.2011.
COM (95) 691 (final): ‘Green Paper European
Commission (1995): ‘Towards fair and efficient
pricing in transport’, not published in the
Official Journal.
COM (2011) 21 (final): ‘A resource-efficient
Europe – Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020
Strategy’, 26.01.2011.
COM (2001) 370 (final): ‘European transport
policy for 2010: time to decide’, 12.09.2001.
SEC (2011) 391 (final): ‘Commission Staff
Working Document accompanying the White
Paper – Roadmap to a Single European Transport
Area: Towards a competitive and resource efficient
transport system’, 28.03.2011.
COM (2007) 551 (final): ‘Green Paper: Towards a
new culture for urban mobility’ 25.09.2007.
COM (2008) 886 final: ‘Action Plan for the
Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in
Europe’, 16.12.2008.
COM (2006) 314 (final): ’Keep Europe moving
- Sustainable mobility for our continent - Midterm review of the European Commission’s 2001
Transport White paper’, 22.06.2006.
COM (2008) 887 (final): ‘Proposal for a Directive
of the European Parliament and of the Council
laying down the framework for the deployment of
Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road
transport and for interfaces with other transport
modes’, 16.12.2008.
ban mobility
B
ctivity and mobility
COM (2009) 279 (final): ‘A sustainable future for
transport : Towards an integrated, technology-led
and user friendly system’, 17.06.2009
Official documents:
Ministerial meetings
Conclusions of the French Presidency of the
European Union at the end of the informal
meeting of Ministers responsible for urban
affairs at the Conference ‘Europe, spatial and
urban development’, Lille, 2 November 2000;
see http://www.eukn.org/E_library/Urban_
Policy/Lille_Action_Programme
COM (2009) 490 (final): ‘Action Plan on Urban
Mobility’, 30.09.2009.
75
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Ministerial meeting urban policy ‘cities
empower Europe’, Conclusions Dutch
presidency 2004.
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/
urban2/pdf/112004_rotterdam_conclusion.pdf
Bristol Accord, Conclusions of Ministerial
Informal Meeting on Sustainable Communities
in Europe, during UK Presidency, 2005. http://
ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/themes/
urban/leipzig_charter.pdf
Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European
Cities, German Presidency, 24 May 2007.
www.eu2007.de
Final statement by the ministers in charge
of urban development, 25 November 2008,
Marseille, French Presidency. http://www.
rfsustainablecities.eu/IMG/pdf/Final_
statement_EN_cle5df3a3-1.pdf
C
General online information
CIVITAS – Cleaner and better transport in
cities
http://www.civitas.eu/index.php?id=69
(13-04-2012)
Clean Vehicle Portal
http://www.cleanvehicle.eu/startseite/
(06-02-2012)
COMmon PROcurement of clean collective and
public service transport vehicles
http://www.compro-eu.org/
(13-04-2012)
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Coordinamento Palermo Ciclabile - FIAB
http://www.palermociclabile.org/
(18-04-2012)
Covenant of Mayors – committed to local
sustainable energy
http://www.eumayors.eu/index_en.html
(13-04-2012)
Eltis Urban Mobility Portal
http://www.eltis.org
(06-02-2012)
EMTA - European Metropolitan Transport
Authorities
http://emta.com
(07-02-2012)
EPOMM - European Platform on Mobility
Management
http://www.epomm.eu/
(07-02-2012)
European Commission - Mobility & Transport
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/index_en.htm
(07-02-2012)
European Commission (2011), Clean transport,
urban Transport
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/urban/index_
en.htm
(13-04-2012)
European Green Cars Initiative
http://www.green-cars-initiative.eu/public/
(16-04-2012)
European Smart Cities
http://www.smart-cities.eu/
(06-02-2012)
76
FIETSenWERK
http://www.fietsenwerk.be/nl/home-1.htm
(06-02-2012)
Obis Project
http://www.obisproject.com/
(07-02-2012)
Förening Öresund
http://www.oresund.com/
(13-04-2012)
Oresund Ecomobility
http://www.oresundecomobility.org/
(13-04-2012)
Intelligent Energy Europe
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/
(07-02-2012)
PILOT - Planning Integrated Local Transport
http://www.pilot-transport.org/
( 07-02-2012)
KpVV (Transport Knowledge Resource Centre)
http://www.kpvv.nl
(07-02-2012)
POLIS - European Cities and Regions
networking for Innovative Transport Solutions
http://www.polisnetwork.eu
(07-02-2012)
Marie de Paris - Velib’
http://en.velib.paris.fr/
(24-04-2012)
Presto Cycling
http://www.presto-cycling.eu
(06-02-2012)
Max - Successful Travel Awareness Campaigns
and Mobility Management Strategies
http://www.max-success.eu/
(07-02-2012)
PRoGRESS project
http://www.progress-project.org/
(07-02-2012)
Metropole Ruhr
http://www.metropoleruhr.de/index.
php?id=6826
(27-04-2012)
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans
http://www.mobilityplans.eu
(06-02-2012)
Transport Learning
http://transportlearning.net/
(07-02-2012)
Mobiliteitsmakelaar Haaglanden
www.mobiliteitsmakelaarhaaglanden.nl/
(06-02-2012)
UITP - International Association of Public
Transport
http://www.uitp.org
(07-02-2012)
Mobility - The European public transport
magazine
http://www.mobility-mag.com/
(07-02-2012)
Urban Audit
http://www.urbanaudit.org/
(13-04-2012)
NICHES+ Transport
http://www.niches-transport.org/
( 07-02-2012)
77
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Urban Audit
http://www.urbanaudit.org/index.aspx
(07-02-2012)
Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr
http://vrr.de/de/index.html#
(27-04-2012)
D
Articles/information online
(author unknown)
‘Athens Mayor commends constructive
meeting on infrastructure’ (28-04-2010)
http://www.cityofathens.gr/en/node/11419
(08-02-2012)
‘Athens Mayor signs Charter of Brussels in
letter to Ecogreens’(06-10-2009)
http://www.cityofathens.gr/en/node/9839
(08-02-2012)
‘Budapest: Cyclist numbers double’ (2010)
http://sustainablecities.dk/en/city-projects/
cases/budapest-cyclist-numbers-double
(07-02-2012)
‘Capture Copenhagen Case Study: Priobus bus service improvements’ (year of publication
unknown)
http://www.eltis.org/studies/copenhagen.htm
(07-02-2012)
‘Choose how you move’
http://www.leics.gov.uk/choosehowyoumove
(08-02-2012)
‘Congestion Charging’ (year of publication
unknown)
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/
congestioncharging/default.aspx
(06-02-2012)
Sustainable Urban Mobility
‘Electric urban Public Transport in Craiova
Municipality’(2009)
http://eltis.org/index.php?id=13&study_
id=2591
(07-02-2012)
‘Joc de la Mobilitat (Mobility Game)’ (2009)
http://www.oriolmanya.net/2009/09/24/joc-dela-mobilitat-mobility-game/ (06-02-2012)
http://www.jocdelamobilitat.cat/ (appears no
longer online)
‘Le service Autolib’: c’est parti’ (05-12-2011)
http://www.paris.fr/accueil/accueil-parisfr/autolib-les-premieres-stations/rub_1_
actu_94468_port_24329 (06-02-2012)
‘Milan introduces traffic charge’ (02-01-2008)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7167992.
stm
(07-02-2012)
‘Peak traffic avoidance NL - results’ (year of
publication unknown)
http://www.spitsmijden.nl/resultaten/english/
(07-02-2012)
‘Randstad 2040’ (year of publication unknown)
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/
gebiedsontwikkeling
(07-02-2012)
‘Randstad under single administrative
authority’ (23-01-2007)
http://crossroadsmag.eu/2007/01/randstadunder-single-administrative-authoritycommission/
(06-02-2012)
‘Randstad Urgent’ (year of publication
unknown)
www.rijksoverheid.nl
(07-02-2012)
78
‘Randstad’ (year of publication unknown)
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/
randstad
(07-02-2012)
‘Travel Smarter, Live Better’ road safety event
proves successful’ (19-09-2010)
http://www.cityofathens.gr/en/node/12162
(08-02-2012)
‘Starter, Climber, Champion cities’ (2011)
www.presto-cycling.eu
( 06-02-2012)
ACS Transport Revenue (year of publication
unknown) ‘Warsaw. The first integrated ticketing system of Eastern Europe’
https://www.acs-inc.com/404.
aspx?aspxerrorpath=/tr/
No longer accessible online
Case studies Sustainable Urban Mobility
http://www.eltis.org/index.php?ID1=6&id=9
(06-02-2012)
‘Stockholm Congestion Charge’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_
congestion_tax
(07-02-2012)
‘Sustainable Accessibility of the Randstad’
(year of publication unknown)
http://www.nwo.nl/nwohome.nsf/pages/
NWOA_794DXJ_Eng
(07-02-2012)
Centrope (year of publication unknown) http://
www.centrope.com/en/centrope-project/cooperation-areas/spatial-integration
no longer accessible online
(27-04-2012)
‘Sustainable Mobility in France’ (02-09-2009)
http://www.eukn.org/Dossiers/Sustainable_
Urban_Mobility/Policy_on_sustainable_
urban_mobility_in_NFPs/Sustainable_Urban_
Mobility_in_France
(08-02-2012)
City of Berlin (year of publication unknown),
Luftreinhalte- und Aktionsplan Berlin
2005-2010
http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/luftqualitaet/de/luftreinhalteplan/umweltzone_aktuelles.shtml
(13-04-2012)
‘The biggest ‘gimcana’ in the world is back in
Barcelona!’ (13-04-2011)
http://w3.bcn.es/V01/Serveis/Noticies/V01NoticiesLlistatNoticiesC
tl/0,2138,1653_1802_3_1504719901,00.
html?accio=detall&home=HomeBCN
(06-02-2012)
City of Berlin (year of publication unknown),
Transport policy and planning http://www.
stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/verkehr/politik_
planung/index_en.shtml
(13-04-2012)
‘Trams in France’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_France
(07-02-2012)
City of Copenhagen (2012), Green urban
mobility http://www.kk.dk/sitecore/content/
Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/SubsiteFrontpage/
LivingInCopenhagen/CityAndTraffic.aspx
(13-04-2012)
79
Sustainable Urban Mobility
City of Dresden (2011), Mobilität
http://www.dresden.de/de/08/c_020.php
(13-04-2012)
City of Frankfurt (year of publication unknown), Low Emission zone Frankfurt am Main
http://www.frankfurt.de/sixcms/detail.
php?id=3060&_ffmpar[_id_inhalt]=4496082
(13-04-2012)
City of Hamburg (2012), Verkehr
http://www.hamburg.de/verkehr/
(13-04-2012)
City of Hannover - Mobilität und Verkehr
http://www.hannover.de/de/wirtschaft/mobilitaet/index.html
(16-04-2012)
City of Malmö (year of publication unknown),
Mobility in Malmö
http://www.malmo.se/English/SustainableCity-Development/Mobility.html
(13-04-2012)
City of Munich (year of publication unknown) Traffic and transport in Munich and the region
http://www.muenchen.de/int/en/traffic.html
(17-04-2012)
City of Prague (2010) - Prague Integrated
Transport http://www.praha.eu/jnp/en/
transport/getting_around/prague_integrated_
transport/index.html
(23-04-2012)
City of Stockholm (2007) ‘Stockholm Vision 2030’
http://international.stockholm.se/FutureStockholm/
(27-04-2012)
Sustainable Urban Mobility
CIVITAS (year of publication unknown) – City
of Bremen
http://www.civitas-initiative.org/index.
php?id=66&sel_menu=35&city_id=26
(13-04-2012)
CIVITAS (year of publication unknown) - City
of Porto
http://www.civitas-initiative.org/index.
php?id=66&sel_menu=35&city_id=90
(23-04-2012)
Cyclomobility (2011) ‘Cycling in Seville self
attempt’
http://www.cyclomobility.com/feature/cyclingin-seville-self-attempt/
No longer accessible online as of January 2012
Cyclomobility (2011) ‘The circle of life Revolution! The story of cycling success in Seville’
http://www.cyclingmobility.com/feature/thecircle-of-life/
No longer accessible online as of January 2012
EAUE - European Academy of the Urban
Environment (2001) ‘Vienna: the new concept for
transport and city planning’
http://www.eaue.de/winuwd/89.htm
(27-04-2012)
EEA - European Environment Agency (year
of publication unknown), ‘Freight Transport
Demand by mode and group of goods’
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/
indicators/freight-transport-demand-by-mode/
folder_contents
(16-04-2012)
EIB (2012)
http://www.eib.org/projects/
loans/2004/20040474.htm
(17-04-2012)
80
EU Observer, ‘Opposition to EU plan for petrolcar-free cities’ (29-03-2011) http://euobserver.
com/9/32084/?rk=1
(16-04-2012)
Glasgow City Council (2012), Keeping
Glasgow Moving http://www.glasgow.gov.
uk/en/Residents/GettingAround/Roads/
KeepGlasgowMoving/
(13-04-2012)
EUKN (05-01-2011) ‘URBACT facing the crisis:
final publication now available’
http://www.eukn.org/E_library/Economy_
Knowledge_Employment/Urban_Economy/
Urban_Economy/URBACT_Cities_facing_the_
crisis_final_publication_now_available
(16-04-2012)
EUKN dossier Sustainable Urban Mobility
http://www.eukn.org/Dossiers/Sustainable_
Urban_Mobility
(08-02-2012)
Hamburg Chamber of Commerce (year of
publication unknown), Sector Profile – Passenger
Transport in Hamburg
http://www.hk24.de/en/economic/347690/
sectorprofile_passenger_transport.html;jsessio
nid=D06BE2592CC09FBFEADFABCA2CD98AAF.
repl20
(13-04-2012)
Helsinki Region Transport (2011) - System
Plan HLJ 2011 http://www.hsl.fi/EN/HLJ2011/
preparationofhlj/visionandstrategy/Pages/
default.aspx
(16-04-2012)
EUKN (2009), ‘Sustainable Urban Mobility in
Romania’
http://www.eukn.org/Dossiers/Sustainable_
Urban_Mobility/Policy_on_sustainable_
urban_mobility_in_NFPs/Sustainable_Urban_
Mobility_in_Romania
(02-05-2012)
HKL (date of publication unknown) - Helsinki
city transport
http://www.hel.fi/hki/hkl/en/About+HKL
(16-04-2012)
European Commission, ManagEnergy (2012)
Park and Ride System - Prague, Czech Republic
http://www.managenergy.net/resources/771
(23-04-2012)
In-Time, Intelligent and efficient travel
management for European cities (year of
publication unknown) Munich
http://www.in-time-project.eu/en/project/
pilot_cities/munich.htm
(17-04-2012)
Fietsberaad (2011), ‘Pilot Bicycle parking system
in Utrecht and Groningen by ProRail’ http://www.
fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?lang=en&section=nie
uws&mode=newsArticle&newsYear=2011&rep
ository=Pilot+bicycle+parking+system+in+Utre
cht+and+Groningen+by+ProRail
(02-05-2012)
League of American bicyclists (2011) ‘VeloCity
- How Sevilla, Spain is becoming a world-class
bicycling city’
http://blog.bikeleague.org/blog/2011/03/velocity-sevilla/
(27-04-2012)
81
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Madrid, Área de Gobierno de Medio Ambiente,
Seguridad y Movilidad(year of publication
unknown) - Movilidad
http://www.madridmovilidad.es/es/inicio.aspx
(17-04-2012)
Verkeerskunde (2009), ‘Weesfietsenaanpak van
start’
http://www.verkeerskunde.nl/weesfietsenaanpak-van-start.19313.lynkx
(02-05-2012)
People for Bikes (2011) ‘Seville’s lesson to world:
how to become bike friendly’
http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/
sevilles_lesson_to_world_how_to_become_
bike_friendly
(27-04-2012)
Vlaamse Overheid, Mobiliteit en Werken
(year of publication unknown), Mobilteitsplan
Vlaanderen
http://www.mobiliteitsplanvlaanderen.be
(13-04-2012)
ProRail (2011), http://www.prorail.nl/pers/
Persberichten/Actueel/Regionaal/Pages/ProRailstartproeffietsparkeersysteeminUtrechtenGroningen.aspx
(02-05-2012)
Rotterdam Climate Initiative (year of publication unknown) - http://rotterdamclimateproof.
nl/nl/100_klimaatbestendig/nieuws/archief_
nieuwsbrieven?xzine_id=21&article_id=504
(23-04-2012)
Sustainable Cities, ‘Lyon: An overall vision for
transport - Urban Mobility Master Plan’ (year
of publication unknown)
http://sustainablecities.dk/en/city-projects/
cases/lyon-an-overall-vision-for-transporturban-mobility-master-plan
(17-04-2012)
Transport for London (year of publication unknown), - Congestion Charging - Benefits
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/6723.aspx
(16-04-2012)
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Wikipedia (2012), Frankfurt Rhine-Main
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_RhineMain
(13-04-2012)
E
publications online
(author unknown)
Ajuntament de Barcelona (2010) –
http://www.bcn.es/agenda21/A21_text/guies/
La_mobilitat2.pdf
(13-04-2012)
Belgische Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers
(2008), Algemene beleidsnota van de
staatssecretaris voor Mobiliteit
http://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/
pdf/52/0995/52K0995025.pdf
(13-04-2012)
Birmingham City Council (2001) – http://www.
birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childp
agename=SystemAdmin%2FPageLayout&cid=1
223092749359&packedargs=website%3D1&pag
ename=BCC%2FCommon%2FWrapper%2FWra
pper&rendermode=live
(13-04-2012)
82
Certu (2007) Urban Road Pricing - the question of
acceptability
http://www.curacaoproject.eu/documents/
acceptability-road-pricing-CERTU.pdf
(07-05-2012)
Birmingham City Council (2003) – http://www.
birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite/walkingstrateg
y?packedargs=website%3D4&rendermode=1
(13-04-2012)
Birmingham City Council (year of publication
unknown) – T (http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/
cs/Satellite/trans-strategy?packedargs=website
%3D4&rendermode=live)
(13-04-2012)
CFCU (2007) – Master Plan de Transport Urban
– Bucuresti, Sibiu si Ploiesti (2007) http://www.
ploiesti.ro/AV%20FINAL.pdf
(13-04-2012)
Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest (2010), IRIS II,
Mobiliteitsplan Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest
http://www.openbareruimtebrussel.irisnet.be/
(13-04-2012)
City of Amsterdam - DIVV (2010) Altijd in
Beweging
http://www.amsterdam.nl/gemeente/
organisatie-diensten/ivv/divv-organisatie/
even-voorstellen
(23-04-2012)
Capital Region of Denmark (2008), http://www.
regionh.dk/NR/rdonlyres/D07BBC02-EE454FDC-AEF7-0BFCA1ECA99C/0/080904_RUP_
UK_net.pdf
(13-04-2012)
City of Amsterdam - DIVV (2010) Mobiliteit in en
rond Amsterdam - Een blik op de toekomst vanuit
een historisch perspectief
http://www.amsterdam.nl/@366626/pagina/
(23-04-2012)
Centro (year of publication unknown)- ‘Making
the Connections’
http://www.centro.org.uk/LTP/LTP.aspx
(13-04-2012)
City of Amsterdam (2010) Amsterdam Elektrisch
- het Plan
http://91.205.33.8/Agora/cp/uploads/bronnen/
actieplanamsterdamelektrisch_1328789729.pdf
(23-04-2012)
Centrope (2006) ‘Centrope Vision 2015’
http://www.centrope.com/repository/
centrope/downloads/Publication_CENTROPE_
Vision_2015_English.pdf
(27-04-2012)
City of Antwerpen (2010), Masterplan 2020
– Bouwstenen voor de uitbreiding van het
Masterplan Mobiliteit Antwerpen
http://www.antwerpen.be/docs/Stad/
Districten/Deurne/Masterplan%202020.pdf
(13-04-2012)
Centrope (year of publication unknown)
‘Centrope.news Newsletter 01 - Transport ad
Mobility in Centrope’
http://www.centrope.com/repository/centrope/
downloads/Transport_and_mobility_in_
Centrope.pdf
(27-04-2012)
City of Bremen - (year of publication
unknown), http://www.communauto.com/
images/03.coupures_de_presse/video_
summary.pdf
(13-04-2012)
83
Sustainable Urban Mobility
City of Brussel (2010) Gemeentelijk
mobiliteitsplan van de stad Brussel,
http://www.brussel.be/dwnld/26403717/PCM_
BXL_Rapport_phase2_v3_fev2012_NL_site.pdf
(13-04-2012)
City of Copenhagen (2009) Working paper
- Economic evaluation of cycle projects methodology and unit prices - Summary
http://www.kk.dk/sitecore/content/
Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/
SubsiteFrontpage/LivingInCopenhagen/
CityAndTraffic/CityOfCyclists/~/media/
F49DA3FEB9164164AA56B737DC6889A1.ashx
(07-02-2012)
City of Copenhagen (2009), Eco-Metropolis, Our
vision for Copenhagen 2015
http://www.kk.dk/FaktaOmKommunen/
PublikationerOgRapporter/Publikationer/tmf_
publikationer.aspx?mode=detalje&id=674
(13-04-2012)
City of Copenhagen (2009), http://www.kk.dk/
sitecore/content/Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/
SubsiteFrontpage/LivingInCopenhagen/
CityAndTraffic/CityOfCyclists/~/media/
F49DA3FEB9164164AA56B737DC6889A1.ashx
(13-04-2012)
City of Copenhagen (2010), Traffic in
Copenhagen 2009
http://www.kk.dk/sitecore/content/Subsites/
CityOfCopenhagen/SubsiteFrontpage/
LivingInCopenhagen/~/media/
BF3A66B079AB4ACAA6CA167ECF151EB3.ashx
(13-04-2012)
City of Duesseldorf (2003) VEP –
Verkehrsentwicklungsplan Landeshauptstadt
Düsseldorf - Teil 1
http://www.duesseldorf.de/
verkehrsmanagement/pdf/vep_teil1.pdf
(27-04-2012)
City of Duesseldorf (2003) VEP –
Verkehrsentwicklungsplan Landeshauptstadt
Düsseldorf - Teil 2
http://www.duesseldorf.de/
verkehrsmanagement/pdf/vep2_bro.pdf
(27-04-2012)
City of Duesseldorf (2003) VEP –
Verkehrsentwicklungsplan Landeshauptstadt
Düsseldorf - Teil 4
http://www.duesseldorf.ihk.de/
linkableblob/1286722/.3./data/M3_
Verkehrsentwicklungsplan_Duesseldorf-data.
pdf;jsessionid=D17CBC09C423F91547746ACC
FC857618.repl1
(27-04-2012)
City of Duesseldorf (year of publication
unknown), ViD – Verkehrssystemmanagement
In Düsseldorf - Das Projekt im Überblick
http://www.duesseldorf.de/
verkehrsmanagement/pdf/vidinfobrosch.pdf
(27-04-2012)
City of Gent (2009), Mobiliteit – Zo veel
mogelijk zonder auto http://www.gent.be/docs/
Departement%20Stafdiensten/Dienst%20
Voorlichting/Stadsmagazine2009/februari%20
2009/17_18_STAD_FEB_2009.pdf
(13-04-2012)
City of Dresden (2008), http://www.dresden.de/
media/pdf/presseamt/Strassenverkehr_2008.
pdf
(13-04-2012)
Sustainable Urban Mobility
84
City of Hannover - Verkehrsentwicklungsplan
‘Pro Klima’ der Region Hannover http://www.
hannover.de/data/download/RH/wimo/oepnv/
vep_pro_klima_beschlussfassung.pdf
(16-04-2012)
City of Nuremberg (2006) Nuremberg Facts &
Figures, Transport (Chapter 5)
http://www.nuernberg.de/imperia/md/
content/internet/ref7/wiv/factsandfigures_
web.pdf
(17-04-2012)
City of Katowice (2005) ‘KATOWICE 2020 - the
city development strategy’
www.um.katowice.pl/en/files/katowice2020.rtf
(16-04-2012)
City of Nuremberg (2010) Baureferat
Verkehrsplanungsamt - Querschnittszählung 2010
http://nuernberg.de/imperia/md/
verkehrsplanung/dokumente/qz_bericht_2010_
web.pdf
(17-04-2012)
City of London, ‘The Mayors London Plan’ (2011)
http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/
londonplan
(07-02-2012)
City of Örebro (year of publication unknown)
Major Investment in biogas and public transport
in Örebro, Sweden
http://www.orebro.se/download/18.43db82a312
ce578ff3c80002173/Biogas+Fact+Sheet+English.
pdf
(07-05-2012)
City of London (2010), ‘The Mayors Transport
Strategy’
http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/mayorstransport-strategy
(07-02-2012)
City of Lille (2006)- ‘le Pédibus’
http://mediatheque.mairie-lille.fr/lille/fr/
Education_-_Enseignement/Brochures/
pedibus2006web.pdf?52521101082011=
(02-05-2012)
City of Palermo (year of publication unknown)
Lo scenario programmatico sul tema della mobilità
e trasporto pubblico
http://www.comune.palermo.it/comune/
settori/urbanistica/vas/programma/
capitolo_2_sostenibilita_territoriale.pdf
(18-04-2012)
City of Mannheim (2010), ’21-Punkte-Programm
für mehr Radverkehr’
http://www.mannheim.de/sites/default/files/
page/9804/flyer_plakat_21_pkt_programm.pdf
(02-05-2012)
City of Prague (2008) Prague Strategic Plan update 2008
http://www.urm.cz/uploads/assets/soubory/
data/strategicky_plan/Angl2008_web.pdf
(23-04-2012)
City of Munich (2005) ‘Shaping the future of
Munich - PERSPECTIVE MUNICH – Strategies,
Principles, Projects’
www.muenchen.de/rathaus/dms/Home/
Stadtverwaltung/.../englisch.pdf
(17-04-2012)
85
Sustainable Urban Mobility
City of Sofia/ EIB/ POVVIK AD (2011)
‘Stakeholder Engagement Plan for the Sofia
Integrated Urban Transport Project’
http://www.sofia.bg/pictss/ei/SOFIA%20
IUTP%20SEP%20-%20Final%20-%202011-0420%20EN.pdf
(27-04-2012)
City of Stockholm (2009) ‘Stockholm City Plan Summary, May 2009’
http://international.stockholm.se/FutureStockholm/Stockholm-City-Plan/
(27-04-2012)
City of The Hague (2010) Haagse Nota Mobiliteit
- ontwerp
http://zbs.denhaag.nl/risdoc/2011/RIS180762A.
PDF
(23-04-2012)
City of Utrecht (2005) Gemeentelijk verkeers- en
vervoerplan Utrecht 2005-2020
http://www.vng.nl/Praktijkvoorbeelden/
RWMV/2005/187547.pdf
(23-04-2012)
City of Utrecht (2011) Utrecht: aantrekkelijk
en bereikbaar - Ambitiedocument http://
www.goudappel.nl/media/files/uploads/
Utrechtaantrekkelijkenbereikbaar.pdf
(23-04-2012)
City of Vienna (2008) ‘A face-lift for the
pedestrian area in Vienna’s city centre!’
http://www.wien.gv.at/english/transportation/
road-construction/pdf/fuzo-brochure.pdf
(27-04-2012)
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Dutch Government (2010) ‘Randstad 2040 is nu’!
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-enpublicaties/rapporten/2010/06/01/randstad2040-is-nu-sterke-steden-sterke-randstadsterk-nederland.html
(23-04-2012)
ELTIS (2011), ‘The State of the Art of Sustainable
Urban Mobility Plans in Europe ‘
http://mobilityplans.eu/docs/file/eltisplus_
state-of-the-art_of_sumps_in_europe_july2011.
pdf
(06-02-2012)
ERTRAC (2011), ‘European Research Roadmap
- Towards an integrated urban mobility system
(Draft)’
http://www.ertrac.org/pictures/
downloadmanager/6/42/towards_an_
integrated_urban_mobility_system_51.pdf
(02-05-2012)
Eures (2004), ‘Mobilitätsreport Saar-Lor-LuxRheinland-Pfalz’
http://www.info-institut.de/eures/
publications/mobilitaetsreport_sllr.pdf
23-04-2012
European Commission (2011), ‘’
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/
fl_312_en.pdf
(07-02-2012)
European Commission - Transport Research
Knowledge Centre (2009), ‘Land Use Planning Thematic Research Summary’
http://www.transport-research.info/Upload/
Documents/201002/20100215_150102_95903_
TRS%20Land%20use%20planning.pdf
(07-02-2012)
86
European Commission (2011) Transport
Statistical pocketbook 2011
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/publications/
statistics/pocketbook-2011_en.htm
(07-05-2012)
Finnish Ministry of Transport and
Communications (2011), ‘Helsinki Region
Congestion Charges - Summary and Conclusions
http://www.lvm.fi/c/document_library/
get_file?folderId=1551284&name=DL
FE-11740.pdf&title=Helsinki%20Region%20
Congestion%20Charges_English%20Summary
(16-04-2012)
European Commission - Transport Research
Knowledge Centre (2009)’Passenger - Thematic
Research Summary’
http://www.transport-research.info/Upload/
Documents/201002/20100215_145725_14673_
TRS%20Passenger%20Transport.pdf
(07-02-2012)
Finnish Ministry of Transport and
Communications (2011), ‘National Strategy for
Walking and Cycling 2020’
http://www.lvm.fi/web/fi/julkaisu/-/
view/1243726
(16-04-2012)
European Commission ( 2010), ‘Study on Urban
Access Restrictions - final report’
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/urban/studies/
doc/2010_12_ars_final_report.pdf
(07-02-2012)
Glasgow City Council (2006), ‘Glasgow
Environment Strategy and Action Plan 2006-2010’
http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/
D382DAAE-00C9-4310-B40E-2DA7219FCD8F/0/
GCCEnvironmentStrategy20062010.pdf
(13-04-2012)
European Commission (2010), ‘EU energy and
transport in figures - Statistical Yearbook 2010’
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/
statistics/doc/2010_energy_transport_figures.
pdf
(07-02-2012)
Glasgow City Council (2007), ‘Glasgow Local
Transport Strategy’
http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/
rdonlyres/1F5B4523-79FA-4654-8C01F1A24013E690/0/Glasgow_LTS_Post_Adoption_
SEA_Statement.pdf
(13-04-2012)
European Parliament (2010), ‘SUSTAINABLE
URBAN TRANSPORT PLANS - NOTE’
http://www.trt.it/documenti/Sustainable%20
Urban%20Transport%20Plans.pdf
(07-02-2012)
Grand Duché de Luxembourg (2005), ‘IVL - An
integrated transport and spatial development
concept
for Luxembourg’
http://www.dat.public.lu/publications/
documents/broch_ivl/broch_ivl_en.pdf
(23-04-2012)
EuroTests (2009), ‘http://www.eurotestmobility.
net/images/filelib/PRESS%20RELEASE%20-%20
Park%20%20Ride%20FINAL_2200.pdf
(06-02-2012)
87
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Grand Lyon (year of publication unknown),
‘Publications sur les déplacements’
http://www.grandlyon.com/Publications-surles-deplacements.521.0.html
(17-04-2012)
Greater Bristol Cycling City (year of publication
unknown), ‘The Delivery Strategy (2008-2011)’
http://www.eukn.org/Dossiers/Sustainable_
Urban_Mobility/Practice/Realising_a_Modal_
Shift_Greater_Bristol_Cycling_City
(08-02-2012)
HKL (year of publication unknown), ‘ Vision
2015 and Strategic actions 2010–2015’
http://www.hel.fi/wps/wcm/connect/9470d3
00409b014e8466b43ce15fc85f/3_HKL_tavoiteesite_ENG.VIIMEINEN.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
(16-04-2012)
IBU – Öresund (2009) http://www.
interreg-oks.eu/en/Material/Files/
IBU+%C3%98resund+Infobrochure
(13-04-2012)
Innovation City Ruhr (year of publication
unknown) ‘InnovationCity Rurh - Eine Stadt baut
um - Die Klimastadt der Zukunft’
http://nrwbank.de/export/sites/nrwbank/
de/downloads/pdf/Veranstaltungen/
Wohnungsmarktbeobachtung/NRW.BANK_
Kolloquium_2010/Innovation_City_Ruhr_-_
Eine_Stadt_baut_um.pdf
(27-04-2012)
ITS Vienna Region (year of publication
unknown),
http://www.anachb.at/Factsheet_E_A4_kl.pdf
(02-05-2012)
Sustainable Urban Mobility
JICA (2000),
http://lnweb90.worldbank.org/ECA/Transport.
nsf/3b8b3d27260832ec852569fa0059675f/c36f
fa75cff6a94685256aef0062e73f/$FILE/SUM_E.
PDF
(13-04-2012)
KZK GOP (2008) ‘The strategy of KZK GOP
activities for the years 2008-2020’
http://www.kzkgop.com.pl/public_media/fb/
files/strony/strategia/strategia_kzk_en.pdf
(16-04-2012)
Leeds City Region Partners (2009) ‘Leeds City
Region Transport Strategy - Executive Summary’
http://www.leedscityregion.gov.uk/
uploadedFiles/Research_and_Publications/
Transport/2.%20LCRTS%20Executive%20
Summary(1).pdf
(17-04-2012)
Lille Métropole - Communauté Urbaine (2010)
‘Het PDU 2010 van Lille Métropole in 10 vragen’
http://www.lmcu.fr/gallery_files/
site/124009/169436/169591.pdf
(17-04-2012)
Lille Métropole - Communauté Urbaine (2010)
‘Revision du plan de Deplacements urbains de Lille
Métropole Communauté urbaine 2010-2020’
http://www.lmcu.fr/gallery_files/
site/124009/169436/172149.pdf
(17-04-2012)
Lille Métropole - Communauté Urbaine (year
of publication unknown) ’Plan de Déplacements
Urbains de LILLE METROPOLE - Charte Micro
PDU’
http://www.lillemetropole.fr/gallery_files/
site/124009/124018.pdf
(17-04-2012)
88
LTP Tyne and Wear (2010) Documents
http://www.tyneandwearltp.gov.uk/
documents/
(17-04-2012)
Ministry of Urban Development of the State of
Berlin (2010) – http://www.stadtentwicklung.
berlin.de/verkehr/politik_planung/zahlen_
fakten/download/Mobility_en_komplett.pdf
(13-04-2012)
Max - Successful Travel Awareness Campaigns
and Mobility Management Strategies (2007)
‘Comprehensive State of the Art Report’
http://www.max-success.eu/downloads/MAX_
SoA_Report.pdf
(07-02-2012)
Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency (PBL) & Stockholm Resilience Centre,
2009, ‘Getting into the Right Lane for 2050’ PBL
publication 500150001, Bilthoven/The Hague,
PBL, www.pbl.nl/nl/publicaties/2009/Gettinginto-the-Right-Lane-for-2050.html
(16-04-2012)
Mayor of London (2011) ‘The London Plan.
Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London
July 2011’
http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/
The%20London%20Plan%202011.pdf
(17-04-2012)
Nottingham City Council - Local Transport
Plan
http://www.mynottingham.gov.uk/index.
aspx?articleid=12631
(17-04-2012)
Mayor of London / Transport for London TfL
(2004) ‘Making London a walkable city - The
Walking Plan for London’
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/
corporate/walking-plan-2004.pdf
(17-04-2012)
NSMC - Showcase - Choose how you move
http://www.thensmc.com/sites/default/
files/Choose%20How%20You%20Move%20
SUMMARY.pdf
(08-02-2012)
Metropolitan Association of Upper Silesia
http://www.gzm.org.pl/index2.
php?option=com_flippingbook&view=book&id
=1&page=1&Itemid=37
(16-04-2012)
OECD (2003)
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/39/42039564.
pdf
(27-04-2012)
OECD (2003), OECD Territorial Reviews: Öresund
Denmark/Sweden 2003
http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/
free/0403041e.pdf
(06-02-2012)
Metropoolregio Amsterdam (2009) Visie op
Bereikbaarheid
http://www.metropoolregioamsterdam.nl/
vvVisieBereikbaarheid.html
(23-04-2012)
OECD (2006), OECD Territorial Review: Milan
Italy 2006
http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/
free/0406051e.pdf
(06-02-2012)
89
Sustainable Urban Mobility
OECD (2009) ‘http://www.oecd.org/
dataoecd/11/25/38246592.pdf
(07-02-2012)
OECD (2009)
http://www.kk.dk/FaktaOmKommunen/
Internationalt/~/media/
FD4632CE69FE4809B8AC103890E72FA7.ashx
(07-02-2012)
OECD (2007), OECD Territorial Reviews: Randstad
Holland, Netherlands 2007
http://www.oecd.org/document/63/0,374
6,en_2649_201185_38267583_1_1_1_1,00.
html#how_to_obtain_this_publication
(06-02-2012)
OSMOSE (2006), London Low Emission Zone (UK)
http://www.osmose-os.org/documents/168/
London%20low%20em_access_restrict.pdf
(17-04-2012)
OSMOSE (year of publication unknown), ‘The
2003 Transport Master plan for Vienna’
http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/
PublicDocuments/Vienna%20_PILOT%20
good%20practice_.pdf
(27-04-2012)
OSMOSE (year of publication unknown), The
Cologne Urban Transport Plan
http://www.osmose-os.org/documents/131/
Cologne%20UTP%20_PILOT%20good%20
practice_.pdf
(27-04-2012)
OSMOSE (year of publication unknown), Traffic
Strategy and Traffic environment programme
2005-2010 of Malmö
http://www.osmose-os.org/documents/161/
Malmo_PILOT.pdf
(13-04-2012)
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/
Rhein- Main (2007), Frankfurt / Rhine-Main
Conurbation Planning Association – Tasks and
Goals
http://www.region-frankfurt.de/media/
custom/1169_819_1.PDF?1147831811
(13-04-2012)
Planungsverband, Regierungspräsidium
Darmstadt (year of publication unknown),
Frankfurt /Rhein-Main 2020 – the European
metropolitan region. Strategic Vision for the
Regional Land Use Plan for the Regionalplan
Südhessen
http://www.region-frankfurt.de/media/
custom/1169_819_1.PDF?1147831811
(13-04-2012)
POLIS (2004
http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/
PublicDocuments/The%20Quality%20Bus%20
Corridor%20(QBC)%20network%20in%20
DUBLIN.pdf
(13-04-2012)
POLIS (2008), Cycling points or fietspunten
(Flemish Region, Belgium) http://www.
polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/
PublicDocuments/Cycling%20Points%20Or%20
FIETSPUNTEN.pdf
(13-04-2012)
POLIS (2011) ‘Member in the spotlights – London:
Towards the next generation of transport payment
systems in London’
http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/
PublicDocuments/2011-01-Member%20in%20
the%20Spotlight%20-%20London.pdf
(17-04-2012)
90
POLIS (2011),
http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/
PublicDocuments/2011-06-dublin.pdf
(13-04-2012)
Public Consultation Cities & Regions on
Communication from the Commission - A
sustainable future for transport: Towards an
integrated, technology-led and user friendly
system (2009)
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/strategies/
consultations/2009_09_30_future_of_
transport_en.htm
(41 documents in zip-file, 07-02-2012)
REC – (year of publication unknown), http://
archive.rec.org/REC/Programs/environmental_
policy/PublicTransport/documents/NextStop.
pdf
(13-04-2012)
POLIS (year of publication unknown), Member
in the spotlights – The compact bus terminal in
Aalborg
http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/
PublicDocuments/2009-03-MS13-Aalborg.pdf
(09-05-2012)
POLIS (year of publication unknown), Member
in the spotlights – Brussels Region, Brussels
Parking Agency: towards an integrated regional
parking policy http://www.polisnetwork.eu/
uploads/Modules/PublicDocuments/2009-02MS12-Brussels.pdf
(13-04-2012)
REC – (year of publication unknown), http://
archive.rec.org/REC/Programs/environmental_
policy/PublicTransport/documents/NextStop.
pdf
(13-04-2012)
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2011) Cities of the
future - global competition, local leadership*
http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/governmentpublic-sector-research/pdf/cities-final.pdf
(07-02-2012)
Region Hannover (2010) - Fact sheets public
transport (2010)
http://www.hannover.de/data/download/RH/
wimo/oepnv/01_at_a_glance.pdf
http://www.hannover.de/data/download/RH/
wimo/oepnv/02_Services.pdf
http://www.hannover.de/data/download/RH/
wimo/oepnv/03_Railways_and_Cityrail.pdf
http://www.hannover.de/data/download/RH/
wimo/oepnv/04_Quality.pdf
http://www.hannover.de/data/download/RH/
wimo/oepnv/05_Finance.pdf
(16-04-2012)
REV8 (2009), Urban Renewal and Regeneration
Projects in Budapest – Jozsef varos http://www.
urbanisztika.bme.hu/segedlet/angol/rev8_
CorvinPP_090304.pdf
(13-04-2012)
Province of Noord-Holland, the Netherlands
(year of publication unknown )Towards an
attractive and sustainable metropolis in the Dutch
delta
http://www.isocarp.org/fileadmin/data/
congresses/2008/Joint_Session_Bakker.pdf
(23-04-2012)
91
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Sheffield City Council (2010) ‘Travel Guide for
Disabled and Older People in Sheffield’
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/caresupport/
adults/travel/support.html
(27-04-2012)
Sheffield City Region (2011) ‘Region Transport
Strategy 2011-2026’
http://www.syltp.org.uk/documents/
SCRTransportStrategy.pdf
(27-04-2012)
Solidarité (year unknown) Building Sustainable
Cities in Europe - bases and actions
http://www.pourlasolidarite.eu/IMG/pdf/
Etude_Villes_Durables_Courte_EN-2.pdf
(07-02-2012)
South Yorkshire (2011) ‘South Yorkshire LTP3
Implementation Plan 2011-2015’
http://www.syltp.org.uk/documents/
LTP3ImplementationPlan.pdf
(27-04-2012)
TELLUS (year of publication unknown), http://ebookbrowse.com/tellus-finalevaluation-report-part-ii-bucharestpdf-d188527940
(13-04-2012)
Transport for Greater Manchester - Local
Transport Plan
http://www.tfgm.com/ltp3/
(17-04-2012)
Transport for London (2005) ‘Improving
walkability - Good practice guidance on improving
pedestrian conditions as part of development
opportunities’
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/
Sustainable Urban Mobility
corporate/improving-walkability2005.pdf
(17-04-2012)
Transport for London (2010) ‘Delivering the
benefits for cycling in Outer London’
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/
businessandpartners/benefits-of-cyclingsummary.pdf
(17-04-2012)
Transport for London (2012) Factsheets
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/4909.
aspx
(17-04-2012)
Transport for London (year of publication
unknown) ‘More information about the New Bus
for London’ http://democracy.bexley.gov.uk/
mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=21836
(17-04-2012)
Transport for London TfL (2006) ‘Workplace
Cycle Parking Guide’
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/
businessandpartners/Workplace-CycleParking-Guide.pdf
(17-04-2012)
UITP (2011), ‘Becoming a real mobility provider.
Combined mobility: public transport in synergy
with other modes like car-sharing, taxi and
cycling…’
http://www.uitp.org/mos/focus/FPComMob-en.
pdf
(02-05-2012)
UN HABITAT (2010) Urban World Volume 2
Issue 5 (2010) - Urban sustainable Mobility
http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/
listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=3075
(07-02-2012)
92
United Nations Environment Programme UNEP
(2011) Cities Investing in energy and resource
efficiency
‘Bereikbaar Haaglanden. Regionaal Convenant
Mobiliteitsmanagement’( 2008)
http://www.slimwerkenslimreizen.nl/
documenten/27.pdf
(06-02-2012)
http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/
Portals/88/documents/ger/GER_12_Cities.pdf
(07-02-2012)
‘Case Study: Lyon Urban Mobility Masterplan’
(2006)
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/archi/programmes/
cost8/case/transport/france-lyon.pdf
(17-04-2012)
URBACT(2011), ‘Economic Crisis: Cities’
Responses and Resources’ (2011)
http://urbact.eu/fileadmin/general_library/
Crise_urbact__16-11_web.pdf
(16-04-2012)
‘European Mobility Week - Best Practice Guide
II 2008’
http://www.mobilityweek.eu/IMG/pdf_best_
practice_guide_2008_en.pdf
(07-02-2012)
VEOLIA (2010), The Veolia Observatory of Urban
Lifestyles: Cities For Living - 2010
http://www.veolia.com/veolia/ressources/
files/1/4274,Observatory_Veolia2010.pdf
(07-02-2012)
Villa de Bilbao – (year of publication unknown)
http://www.bilbao.net/noticias/planmov.pdf
(13-04-2012)
‘European Mobility Week - Best Practice Guide
III 2009’
http://www.mobilityweek.eu/IMG/pdf_best_
practice_guide_2009_en.pdf
(07-02-2012)
WORLD BANK (2010), Cities and Climate Change
- An Urgent Agenda
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/
INTUWM/Resources/340232-1205330656272/
CitiesandClimateChange.pdf
(07-02-2012)
‘Sustainable Malmö - Making Sustainability
Reality’ (2009)
http://www.malmo.se/download/18.
af27481124e354c8f1800015936/susmalmo_
kortis_eng_091118webb.pdf
(07-02-2012)
‘Warsaw - The first integrated ticketing
system of Eastern Europe’ (year of publication
unknown)
http://acs.e-letter.fr/etudesdecasen/
VarsovieEn.pdf
(07-02-2012)
F
Publications/articles online
(author known)
Antonin, L. (2011) Shared Mobility: Welcome to
the ‘Age of Access’
http://shareable.net/blog/shared-mobilitywelcome-to-the-age-of-access
(07-02-2012)
93
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Bakker A., Leijs S., Guit M. (Year of publication
unknown) Rotterdam gaat voor duurzame
mobiliteit,
http://www.verkeerskunde.nl/
duurzamemobiliteitRotterdam
(23-04-2012)
Berveling, J. et al. (2011) Gedrag in beleid.
Met psychologie en gedragseconomie het
mobiliteitsbeleid versterken
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/
ienm/documenten-en-publicaties/
rapporten/2011/07/21/gedrag-in-beleid.html
(07-02-2012)
Bobbio, R. & Diano, D. (2009) Smart Tracks. A
strategy for sustainable mobility in Naples, 45th
ISOCARP Congress 2009
http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_
studies/1423.pdf
(08-02-2012)
Boos, V. & Muno, A. (2011) European Mobility
Week - Best Practice Guide V 2011
http://www.mobilityweek.eu/IMG/pdf_best_
practice_guide_2011_en.pdf
(07-02-2012)
Byers, A. (2006) SUTP DEVELOPMENT IN
EUROPE D1.2 ROADMAP DEVELOPMENT IN 4
PILOT CITIES
http://www.google.nl/
url?sa=t&rct=j&q=d1.2%20%20roadmap%20
development%20in%204%20pilot%20citie
s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCUQFjAA&
url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pilot-transport.
org%2Ffileadmin%2FWP1%2FDel1_2_
Roadmaps_4_cities_v3_0.
doc&ei=9jExT8rcE8OW-waYnam1BQ&usg=AF
QjCNHLb7nT4GRBLPDWfK4W_HVap9RsYA
(07-02-2012)
Chandler, E.K. (2009), Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/
bicing-barcelonas-communa_n_197050.
html?view=print
(13-04-2012)
Chorianopoulos, I. et al (2010) Planning,
competitiveness and sprawl in the Mediterranean
city: The case of Athens, Cities, 27:249-259
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S0264275110000193
(13-04-2012)
Bührmann, S. (2008) Bicycles as public-individual
transport – European Developments (Meetbike
Conference, Dresden 2008)
http://www.gtkp.com/assets/
uploads/20091127-150125-6592-Meetbike_
article_Buehrmann_040408.pdf
(07-02-2012)
Christofakis, M. (2004), Athens metropolitan
area: New challenges and development planning,
City Futures Conference, July 8 – 10, 2004,
Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/cityfutures/
papers/webpapers/cityfuturespapers/
session7_6/7_6athens.pdf
(08-02-2012)
Bührmann, S. et al (2011), Guidelines. Developing
and Implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility
Plan.
http://www.eltis.org/docs/sump_library/SUMP_
guidelines_web00.pdf
(07-02-2012)
Deloukas, A. (year of publication unknown )
European Transport Conference 2005 http://
etcproceedings.org/paper/public-transportdemand-and-revenues-in-athens-theintroduction-of-metro-and-n
(08-02-2012)
Sustainable Urban Mobility
94
DeRobertis, M. (2010) ‘Land Development and
Transportation Policies for Transit-Oriented
Development in Germany and Italy: Five Case
Studies’
http://www.gmfus.org/wp-content/files_mf//
galleries/ct_publication_attachments/
CDP_DeRobertis_Land_Development_and_
Transportation.pdf
(27-04-2012)
Giffinger, R. et al (2007), Smart cities. Ranking of
European medium-sized cities
http://www.smart-cities.eu/download/smart_
cities_final_report.pdf
(06-02-2012)
Goulas, G. et al (2001) 7th International
Conference on Environmental Science and
Technology Ermoupolis, Syros island, Greece –
Sept. 2001
http://environ.chemeng.ntua.gr/en/UserFiles/
File/Evaluation%20of%20transport%20
policies%20in%20Athens.pdf
(08-02-2012)
Dings, J. (2009) CO2 emissions from transport in
the EU27An analysis of 2007 data submitted to
the UNFCCC
http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/
default/files/media/2009%2007_te_ghg_
inventory_analysis_2007_data.pdf
(07-02-2012)
Harper, L. & Muno, A. (2010) European Mobility
Week - Best Practice Guide IV 2010
http://www.mobilityweek.eu/IMG/pdf_best_
practice_guide_2010_en.pdf
(07-02-2012)
Dufour, D. (year of publication unknown)
http://www.urbanicity.org/Site/Articles/
default.aspx
(07-02-2012)
Knapp W., Schmitt P. (2005) ‘RhineRuhr Analysis
of Policy Documents & Policy Focus Groups’
(POLYNET Action 3.1)
http://www.polynet.org.uk/3_1_rruhr.pdf
(27-04-2012)
Knapp, W. & Schmitt, P. (2003) Re-structuring
Competitive Metropolitan Regions in North-west
Europe:On Territory and Governance
http://www.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/
Refereed%20articles/refereed6.pdf
(07-02-2012)
Eliasson, J. & Beser Hugosson, M. (2006), http://
www.etcproceedings.org/paper/the-stockholmcongestion-charging-system-an-overview-ofthe-effects-after-six(06-02-2012)
Faling, W. et al (2006), Creative Densification
http://www.reurba.org/downloads/061120CreativeDensdef.pdf
(06-02-2012)
Kodransky, M. & Hermann, G. (2001) Europe’s
Parking U-Turn: From Accommodation to
Regulation
http://www.slideshare.net/transportsdufutur/
european-parking-uturn
(07-02-2012)
Freemark, Y. (2011), Car Sharing 2.0 Leaps
Forward in Paris,
http://www.thetransportpolitic.
com/2011/10/04/car-sharing-2-0-leapsforward-in-paris/
(23-04-2012)
95
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Krzywkowska, G. (ed.) (2004), Next stop:
sustainable transport - A Survey of Public
Transport in Six Cities of Central and Eastern
Europe
http://www.thepep.org/clearinghouse/docfiles/
nextstop_smaller_1.pdf
(07-02-2012)
Metz, F. (2011), Campagnes, hebben die zin?
http://kpvv-reisgedrag.blogspot.com/2011/10/
campagnes-hebben-die-zin.html#more
(07-02-2012)
Muno, A. & Janssen, U. (2010) European Mobility
Week - Handbook 2010
http://www.mobilityweek.eu/IMG/pdf_2010_
handbook.pdf
(07-02-2012)
Newman, P. (2006), Model Cities: Europe. Zurich,
Copenhagen, Stockholm And Freiburg - European
Transit Oriented Planning At its Best,
http://www.istp.murdoch.edu.au/ISTP/
casestudies/Case_Studies_Asia/european/
european.html
(06-02-2012)
Pucher, J. and Buehler, R. (2007) At the Frontiers
of Cycling: Policy Innovations in the Netherlands,
Denmark, and Germany
http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/
Frontiers.pdf
(07-02-2012)
Raeva, D. (2007) ‘Mobility Management:
Sustainability Option for Sofia s Urban Transport
Policy? Learning from the experience of Lund and
exploring its transferability to Sofia’
https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func
=downloadFile&recordOId=1325428&fileO
Id=1325429
(27-04-2012)
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Rosenthal, E. (2011) Across Europe, Irking Drivers
Is Urban Policy
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/science/
earth/27traffic.html?_r=1
(07-02-2012)
Rüsch, S (2009) ‘Planning strategies in Vienna/
Austria to raise the rate of bike traffic - The
Promotion of cycling in the city using the
example of the exhibition fahr_rad_in_wien
http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_
studies/1500.pdf
(27-04-2012)
Vilikovská Z. (2010) http://spectator.sme.sk/
articles/view/38470/10/bratislava_and_vienna_
to_sign_agreement_on_cooperation.html
(27-04-2012)
Warren, J. (2008), Transform Scotland, Towards
a healthier economy – Why investing in
sustainable transport makes economic sense
http://www.transformscotland.org.uk/towardsa-healthier-economy.aspx
(13-04-2012)
Wegener, M. & Fürst, F. (1999) Land-Use
Transport Interaction: State of the Art
http://www.raumplanung.tu-dortmund.de/
irpud/fileadmin/irpud/content/documents/
publications/ber46.pdf
(07-02-2012)
Wolfram, M. & Bührmann, S. (2007) Sustainable
Urban Transport Planning -SUTP Manual Guidance for stakeholders 2007
http://pilot-transport.org/fileadmin/WP2/
Pilot_EN_WEB.pdf
(07-02-2012)
96
G
Scientific articles
Banister D. (2008), ‘The sustainable mobility
paradigm’, in Transport Policy, 15, pp. 73-80.
Anable J. (2005), ‘Complacent Car Addicts’ or
‘Aspiring Environmentalists’? Identifying travel
behaviour segments using attitude theory’, in
Transport Policy, 12(1), pp. 65-78.
Binswanger M. (2001), ‘Technological progress
and sustainable development: What about the
rebound effect?’, in Ecological Economics, 36 (1),
pp. 119-132.
Anable J., Schwanen T., Banister D. (2012),
‘Climate Change, Energy and Transport: The
Interviews. Scanning Study Policy Briefing
Note 1’ in Transport Studies Unit, University of
Oxford / Centre for Transport Research, University
of Aberdeen [available at: www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/
research/ccet]
Burlando C., Canali C., Musso E., Pelizzoni C.
(2000), ‘Policies for sustainable mobility in
Italian cities’, in Urban Transport VI, 2000,
pp.277-286
Button K. (1998), ‘The good, the bad and the
forgettable – or lessons the US can learn
from European transport policy’, in Journal of
Transport Geography, 6(4), pp. 285-294.
Andreev P., Salomon I., Pliskin N. (2010),
‘Review: State of teleactivities’, in
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies, 18(1), pp. 3-20.
Cairns S., Sloman L., Newson C., Anable J.,
Kirkbride A., Goodwin P., (2008), ‘Smarter
Choices: Assessing the Potential to Achieve
Traffic Reduction Using ‘Soft Measures’, in
Transport Reviews, 28(5), pp. 593-618.
Bagley M.N., Mokhtarian P.L. (2002), ‘The
impact of residential neighborhood type
on travel behavior: a structural equations
modeling approach’, in Annals of Regional
Science, 36(2), pp. 279-297.
Camagni R. et al (2002), ‘Urban mobility and
urban form: the social and environmental
costs of different patterns of urban expansion’,
in Ecological Economics, 40, pp. 199–216.
Bamberg S., Ajzen I., Schmidt P. (2003), ‘Choice
of travel mode in the theory of planned
behavior: the roles of past behavior, habit, and
reasoned action’, in Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 25(3), pp. 175-188.
Cao X., Mokhtarian P.L., Handy S.L. (2009),
‘Examining the impacts of residential selfselection on travel behaviour: A focus on
empirical findings’, in Transport Reviews, 29(3),
pp. 359-395.
Bamberg S., Schmidt P. (2001), ‘Theory-driven
evaluation of an intervention to reduce the
private car-use’, in Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 31(6), pp. 1300-1329.
Carrasco J.A., Miller E.J. (2006), ‘Exploring the
propensity to perform social activities: a social
network approach’ in Transportation, 33(5), pp.
463-480.
Banister D., Stead D. (2004), ‘Impact of
information and communications technology
on transport’, in Transport Reviews, 24(5), pp.
611-632.
Dugundji E., Walker J. (2005), ‘Discrete
choice with social and spatial network
97
Sustainable Urban Mobility
interdependencies: an empirical example
using mixed GEV models with field and ‘panel’
effects’, in Transportation Research Record, 1921,
pp. 70-78.
Gerber P., Carpentier S., Petit S., Pigeron-Piroth
I. (2008) ‘Mobilités quotidienne et résidentielle
au Luxembourg : un aperçu à traversl’outil
MobilluxWeb’, in Population & Territoire No. 13,
pp. 2-16.
Goldman T., Gorham R. (2006), ‘Sustainable
Urban Transport: Four innovative directions’,
in Technology in Society, 28(1-2), pp. 261-273.
Greene D.L., Wegener M. (1997), ‘Sustainable
transport’, in Journal of Transport Geography,
5(3), pp.177-190.
Gunningham N., Sinclair, D. (1999), ‘Regulatory
Pluralism: Designing Policy Mixes for
Environmental Protection’, in Law & Policy,
21(1), pp. 49-76.
Hajer M., Kesselring S. (1999) ‘Democracy
in the Risk Society? Learning from the New
Politics of Mobility in Munich’, in Environmental
Politics, 1999(3), pp.1-23.
Handy S.L., Clifton K.J. (2001), ‘Local shopping
as a strategy for reducing automobile travel’,
in Transportation, 28(4), pp. 317-346.
Handy S.L., Cao X., Mokhtarian P.L. (2005),
‘Correlation or causality between the built
environment and travel behavior? Evidence
from Northern California’, in Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment,
10(6), pp. 427-444.
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Hensher D. (1993), ‘Socially and
Environmentally appropriate urban futures for
the motor car’, in Transportation, 20(1), pp. 1-19.
Kennedy C., Miller E., Shalaby A., Maclean
H., Coleman J. (2005), ‘The Four Pillars of
Sustainable Urban Transportation’ in Transport
Reviews, 25(4), pp. 393-414.
Kitamura R. (2009), ‘Life-style and travel
demand’, in Transportation, 36(6), pp. 679-710.
Knowles R. ( 1993), ‘Editorial introduction.
Research agendas in transport geography for
the 1990s’, in Journal of Transport Geography
1(1), pp. 3-11.
Loughlin J. (2007), ‘Reconfiguring the State:
Trends in Territorial Governance in European
States’, in Regional & Federal Studies, 17(4), pp.
385-403.
Lyons G. (2002), ‘Internet: New technology’s
evolving role, nature and effects on transport’,
in Transport Policy, 9(4), pp. 335-346.
Marsden G., May A.D. (2006), ‘Do institutional
arrangements make a difference to transport
policy and implementation? Lessons for
Britain’, in Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, 24(5), pp. 771-789.
Miller E.J., Roorda M. (2003), ‘A prototype model
of household activity/travel scheduling’, in
Transportation Research Record, 1831, pp. 114121.
Mindali O., Raveh A., Salomon I. (2004), ‘Urban
density and energy consumption: a new look
at old statistics’, in Transportation Research Part
A: Policy and Practice, 38(2), pp. 143-162.
98
Mokhtarian P. (2003), ‘Telecommunications
and travel. The Case for Complementarity’, in
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 6(2), pp. 43-57.
and economic policies in road transport’, in
Research in Transportation Economics, 28(1), pp.
2-45.
Næss P. (2009), ‘Residential Self-Selection and
Appropriate Control Variables in Land Use:
Travel Studies’, in Transport Reviews, 29(3), pp.
293-324.
Schwanen T. (2008), ‘Managing uncertain
arrival times through sociomaterial
associations’, in Environment and Planning B,
35(6), pp. 997-1011.
Neuman M., Hull A. (2009), ‘The Futures of the
City Region’, in Regional Studies, 43: 6, pp. 777787.
Schwanen T., Mokhtarian P.L. (2005), ‘What
affects commute mode choice: neighborhood
physical structure or preferences toward
neighborhoods?’, in Journal of Transport
Geography, 13(1), pp. 83-99.
Newman P.W.G., Kenworthy J.R. (1996), ‘The
land use-transport connection: an overview’,
in Land Use Policy, 13(1), pp. 1-22.
Stead D., Banister D. (2001), ‘Influencing
mobility outside transport policy’, in
Innovation, 14(4), pp. 315-330.
Nijkamp P. (2006), ‘In search of a transport
policy research agenda’, in International Journal
of Transport Economics XXXIII(2), pp. 141-167.
Rickaby P.A. (1987), ‘Six settlement patterns
compared’, in Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design, 14(2), pp. 193-223.
Stead D., Marshall S. (2001), ‘The Relationships
between Urban Form and Travel Patterns:
An International Review and Evaluation’, in
European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure
Research, 1(2), pp. 113-141.
Ewing R., Cervero R. (2001), ‘Travel and the
built environment’, in Transportation Research
Record, 1780, pp. 87-114.
Stead D. (2011), ‘Best Practices and Policy
Transfer in Spatial Planning’, in Planning,
Practice & Research, (2011), pp. 1-17.
Pucher J. and Buehler R. (2010), ‘Walking and
Cycling for Healthy Cities’, in Built Environment,
36( 4), pp. 391.
Stough R., Rietveld P. (1997), ‘Institutional
issues in transport systems’, in Journal of
Transport Geography, 5(3), pp. 207-214.
Rayner J., Howlett M. (2009), ‘Implementing
integrated land management in Western
Canada: Policy reform and the resilience of
clientelism’, in Journal of Natural Resources
Policy Research, 1(4), pp. 321–334.
Troy P.N. (1992), ‘Let’s Look at that Again’, in
Urban Policy and Research, 10(1), pp. 41-49.
Van Acker V., van Wee B., Witlox F. (2010),
‘When Transport Geography Meets Social
Psychology: Toward a Conceptual Model of
Travel Behaviour’, in Transport Reviews, 30(2),
pp. 219-240.
Santos G., Behrendt H., Maconi L., Shirvani
T., Teytelboym A. (2010), ‘Part I: Externalities
99
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Verplanken B., Aarts H., van Knippenberg A.,
Knippenberg C. (1994), ‘Attitude versus general
habit: antecedents of travel mode choice’, in
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(4), pp.
285-300.
Molle W. (1990), ‘The economics of European
integration’, Aldershot, Dartmouth
HBooks
Owens S. (1986), ’Energy, Planning and Urban
Form’, London, Pion
Banister D. (2002), ‘Transport Planning’, (Second
edition) London, Spon
Banister D., Stead D., Steen P., Dreborg K.,
Åkerman J., Nijkamp P., Schleicher-Tappeser
R. (2000), ‘European Transport Policy and
Sustainable Development’, London, Spon
Banister D. (2005), ‘Unsustainable Transport:
City Transport in the New Century’, Routledge,
London
Boarnet M.G., Crane R. (2001), ‘Travel by Design:
The Influence of Urban Form on Travel’, Oxford/
New York, Oxford University
Geerlings H., Shiftan Y., Stead D., (eds.) (2012)
‘Transition towards Sustainable Mobility: the
Role of Instruments, Individuals and Institutions’,
Ashgate, Farnham
Smart cities – Ranking of European medium-sized
cities’
Hillman M., Whalley A. (1983), ‘Energy and
Personal Travel: Obstacles to Conservation’,
London, Policy Studies Institute
Meijers E., Romein A., Hoppenbrouwer E.
(2003), ‘Planning polycentric urban regions in
North West Europe’, Delft: Housing and Urban
policy studies/ DUP Science
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Newman P.W.G., Kenworthy J.R. (1989), ‘Cities
and automobile dependence: An international
sourcebook’, Aldershot, Gower
Pushkarev B.S., Zupan J.M. (1977), ‘Public
Transportation and Land Use Policy’,
Bloomington, Indiana University Press
Roberts J., Cleary J., Hamilton K., Hanna
J. (1992), ‘Travel Sickness: The Need for a
Sustainable Transport Policy for Britain’, London,
Lawrence and Wishart
Salomon I., Bovy P., Orfeuil J.P. (1993), ‘A Billion
Trips a Day: Tradition and Transition in European
Travel Patterns’, Dordrecht, Kluwer
Stevens H. (2004), ‘Transport Policy in the
European Union’, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan
Wilson A.G. (2000), ‘Complex Spatial Systems:
The Modelling Foundations of Urban and Regional
Analysis’, New York: Pearson
I
Book Chapters
Aspinwall M. (1999), ‘Planes, Trains and
Automobiles: Transport Governance in the
European Union’. In: Kohler-Koch B., Eising R.,
(eds.) ‘The Transformation of Governance in the
European Union’, London: Routledge, pp. 119134
100
Kerwer D., Teutsch M. (2001), ‘Transport Policy
in the European Union’. In: Héritier A., Kerwer
D., Knill C., Lehmkuhl D., Teutsch T., Douillet
A.C., (eds.) ‘Differential Europe. The European
Union Impact on National Policymaking’, Lanham
(MD), Rowman & Littlefield, pp.23-56
Presentation ‘Cyclocity - a revolutionary public
transport system accessible to all’ JC Decaux
http://bikesharephiladelphia.org/PDF%20DOC/
V%C3%A9lo’V_A_REVOLUTIONARY_PUBLIC_
TRANSPORT_SYSTEM_ACCESSI.pdf
(17-04-2012)
Ronis D.L., Yates J.F., Kirscht J.P. (1989),
‘Attitudes, decisions, and habits as
determinants of repeated behavior’, in:
Pratkanis A.R., Breckler S.J., Greenwald A.G.
(eds.), ‘Attitude structure and function’, Hillsdale
(NJ), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 213-240
Presentation ‘Electric mobility in North Rhine
Westphalia’ by Rainer van Loon, EnergyAgency.
NRW
http://www.polisnetwork.eu/
(27-04-2012)
J
Various (presentations/
interview/conference
speech etc.)
Presentation at Eurocities Urban Mobility
Forum 7 oct, Mannheim DE by Tibor Schlosser,
Head Traffic Engineer Bratislava
Presentation ‘Campaigning the Campaign gaining stakeholder support for travel awareness
campaigns’, by Caroline Mattsson, ETT at
ECOMM2009, 13-15 of May 2009, San Sebastian
http://www.epomm.eu/ecomm2009/4_
mattson.pdf
(02-05-2012)
Presentation ‘Cities and global warming - the
Paris Climate Plan’ by Denis Baupin, Deputy
mayor of Paris at CEPS Cities and Climate
Change Conference, March 2011
http://www.eu-ems.com/event_images/
Downloads/Baupin.pdf
(18-04-2012)
Presentation ‘ by Michael Kodransky, Rosario,
Argentina, May 12, 2011
http://www.itdp.org/
documents/061311gp1_2_02_michael_
kodransky.pdf ( 07-02-2012)
Presentation ‘EVUE - Lisbon’ by Tiago Farias
and Oscar Rodrigues at EVUE kick off meeting
23-02-2010
http://urbact.eu/fileadmin/Projects/EVUE/
documents_media/Lisbon_presentation_
Feb_2010.pdf (17-04-2012)
Presentation ‘Frankfurt Rhein Main’ at
ECOMM2011 Toulouse 20th of May 2011 by Jörg
Bombach,
http://ecomm2012.eu/downloads/
Praesentation_Bombach_Toulouse.pdf
(07-02-2012)
101
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Presentation ‘Cross-cost incententive contracts
- an innovative instrument for financing local
and regional railways’, November 26 Dresden,
Germany, by Dr. Alexander West, VBB
Verkehrsverbund Berlin-Brandenburg GmbH
http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/
PublicDocuments/Gross_cost_incentive_
contracts___an_innovative_instrument_of_
financing_local_and_regional_railways__Dr_
Alexander_West__Verkehrsverbund_BerlinBrandenburg.pdf, (07-05-2012)
Presentation ‘Integrated Mobility and land use
planning in Romania – national framework,
policies and practice’ by Monica Oreviceanu,
Ministry of Regional Development and
Tourism, Civitas CATALIST
Presentation ‘Masterplan mobility Antwerp’,
European Confederation of Young
Entrepreneurs, Antwerp 9 May 2008
http://www.bamnv.be/content/bam/uploads/
docs/080509.EU%20CONFEDERATION%20
ENTREPRENEURS.pdf (15-04-2012)
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Presentation ‘Planning for an aging society
in Berlin – impacts on Urban Transport’ by
Hermann Blümel, POLIS workshop
Presentation ‘Sustainable Urban Public Transport
– Painful to develop, healthy to use’ by Alexandru
Popu at TERRA Mileniul III Foundation
Presentation ‘Kerbside Parking – Less Congestion’
by Steve Kearns – Transport for London at
the European Parking Association – 17 May
2011 http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/
Modules/PublicDocuments/kearns_tfl-parkingchallenges.pdf (17-04-2012)
Presentation ‘Latest Trends in Urban Modal
Split in Warsaw’ by Jacek Malasek, COST 355,
Torino, 3 October 2007 http://cost355.inrets.fr/
IMG/ppt/WG2-Torino-031007-Malasek-Urban_
modal_split_Warsaw.ppt ( 07-02-2012)
Presentation ‘MVG-School-Project “Mobi-Race” by
Florian Paul, Munich Transit Ltd. Strategy and
Planning at Niches Workshop, Burgos, March
23rd 2010
http://niches-transport.org/fileadmin/
NICHESplus/ChampionCities/Florian_Paul_
Burgos_23032010.pdf
(17-04-2012)
Presentation ‘The one minute fraction tariff in our
urban car parks’ by Antoni Roig, EPA, EPA-POLIS
Parking Workshop, May 2011 Stuttgart
Speech ‘Maintaining Commitments’, Vincent
Leiner, Policy Officer Clean Transport and
Sustainable Urban Mobility, European
Commission at CIVITAS workshop, 13-0902011, Brussels
Interview with Mr Frits Lintmeijer, Deputy
Mayor responsible for a.o. Mobility and
International Affairs of the City of Utrecht and
Chair of the Eurocities Mobility Forum (Ries
Kamphof & Sietske Voorn,28.07.2011)
102
www.eltis.org
103
Sustainable Urban Mobility
Published by
European Metropolitan network Institute
Authors
Ries Kamphof LL.M, MA
Sietske Voorn MSc
Lay-out
www.az-gsb.nl, The Hague
European Metropolitan network Institute
Laan van N.O. Indië 300
2593 CE The Hague
Postbox 90750
2509 LT The Hague
Phone +31(0)70 344 09 66
Fax +31(0)70 344 09 67
Email info@emi-network.eu
Website www.emi-network.eu
Sustainable Urban Mobility
104