planning and design for sustainable urban mobility: policy directions

PLANNING AND DESIGN FOR SUS TAIN ABLE URBAN MOBILITY:

POLICY DIRECTIONSGLOBAL REPORT ON HUMAN

SETTLEMENTS 2013

Abridged Edition

United Nations Human Settlements Programme

First published 2013by Routledge2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canadaby Routledge711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright © 2013 United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)

An electronic version of this publication and of the full Planning and Design for Sustainable Urban Mobility:Global Report on Human Settlements 2013 will be made available from www.unhabitat.org/grhs/2013

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by anyelectronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying andrecording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from thepublishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are usedonly for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)PO Box 30030, GPO Nairobi 00100, KenyaTel: +254 20 762 3120Fax: +254 20 762 3477/4266/4267www.unhabitat.org

DISCLAIMERThe designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or regarding its economic system or degree of development. The analysis,conclusions and recommendations of the report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United NationsHuman Settlements Programme, the Governing Council of the United Nations Human SettlementsProgramme or its Member States.

HS/032/13EISBN (Series): 978-92-1-131929-3ISBN (Volume): 978-92-1-132569-0

Cover design by Austin OgolaTypeset in Gill Sans and Weidemann byFlorence Production Ltd, Stoodleigh, Devon, UK

Introduction iv

Acknowledgements vii

1 The Urban Mobility Challenge 1

2 The State of Urban Passenger Transport 6

3 Metro, Light Rail and BRT 13

4 Urban Goods Transport 20

5 Mobility and Urban Form 27

6 Equitable Access to Urban Mobility 36

7 Urban Mobility and the Environment 42

8 The Economics and Financing of Urban Mobility 48

9 Institutions and Governance for Urban Mobility 54

10 Toward Sustainable Urban Mobility 59

Selected References 65

CONTENTS

Urban transport systems worldwide are faced by a multitude of challenges. In most cities, the economicdimensions of such challenges tend to receive most attention. The traffic gridlocks experienced on city roadsand highways have been the basis for the development of most urban transportation strategies and policies.The solution prescribed in most of these has been to build more infrastructures for cars, with a limited numberof cities improving public transport systems in a sustainable manner.

However, the transportation sector is also responsible for a number of other challenges that do notnecessarily get solved by the construction of new infrastructure. It is, for example, responsible for a largeproportion of the greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change. Furthermore, road traffic accidentsare among the main causes of premature deaths in most countries and cities. Likewise, the health effects ofnoise and air pollution caused by motorized vehicles are a major cause for concern. In some cities, the physicalseparation of residential areas from places of employment, markets, schools and health services force manyurban residents to spend increasing amounts of time, and as much as a third (and sometimes even more) oftheir income, on public transport.

While those among the urban populace that have access to a private car, or can afford to make regularuse of public transport, see traffic jams and congestion as a major concern; this is a marginal issue for peopleliving in ‘transport poverty’. Their only affordable option for urban transportation is their own feet. Personswith low household incomes – but also others, including many women, and vulnerable groups such as theyoung, the elderly, the disabled, and ethnic and other minorities – form the bulk of those characterized asliving in transport poverty.

Thus, when the Secretary-General of the United Nations launched his ‘Five-year action agenda’ in January2012, he identified sustainable transportation as one of the major building blocks of sustainable development.In particular, he stressed the need for urgent action to develop more sustainable urban ‘transport systemsthat can address rising congestion and pollution’. He noted that action was required by a range of actors,including ‘aviation, marine, ferry, rail, road and urban public transport providers, along with Governmentsand investors’.

Planning and Design for Sustainable Urban Mobility: Global Report on Human Settlements 2013seeks to highlight the transportation challenges experienced in cities all over the world, and identifies examplesof good practice from specific cities of how to address such challenges. The report also provides recommendationson how national, provincial and local governments and other stakeholders can develop more sustainable urbanfutures through improved planning and design of urban transport systems.

The report argues that the development of sustainable urban transport systems requires a conceptualleap. The purpose of ‘transportation’ and ‘mobility’ is to gain access to destinations, activities, services andgoods. Thus, access is the ultimate objective of all transportation (save a small portion of recreational mobility).The construction of more roads for low-income cities and countries is paramount to create the conditions todesign effective transport solutions. However, urban planning and design for these cities and others in themedium and high income brackets is crucial to reduce distances and increase accessibility to enhancingsustainable urban transport solutions. If city residents can achieve access without having to travel at all (forinstance through telecommuting), through more efficient travel (online shopping or car-sharing), or by

INTRODUCTION

travelling shorter distances, this will contribute to reducing some of the challenges currently posed by urbantransport. Thus, urban planning and design should focus on how to bring people and places together, by creatingcities that focus on accessibility, rather than simply increasing the length of urban transport infrastructure orincreasing the movement of people or goods.

The issue of urban form and functionality of the city is therefore a major focus of this report. Not onlyshould urban planning focus on increased population densities; cities should also encourage the developmentof mixed-use areas. This implies a shift away from strict zoning regulations that have led to a physical separationof activities and functions, and thus an increased need for travel. Instead, cities should be built around theconcept of ‘streets’, which can serve as the focus for building liveable communities. Cities should thereforeencourage mixed land-use, both in terms of functions (i.e. residential, commercial, manufacturing, servicefunctions and recreational) and in terms of social composition (i.e. with neighbourhoods containing a mixtureof different income and social groups).

Such developments also have the potential to make better use of existing transport infrastructure. Mostof today’s cities have been built as ‘zoned’ cities, which tends to make rather inefficient use of their infrastructure;as ‘everyone’ is travelling in the same direction at the same time. In such cities, each morning is characterizedby (often severe) traffic jams on roads and congestion on public transport services leading from residentialareas to places of work. At the same time, however, the roads, buses and trains going in the opposite directionare empty. In the afternoon the situation is the opposite. Thus, the infrastructure in such cities is operatingat half capacity only, despite congestion. In contrast, in cities characterized by ‘mixed land-use’ (such asStockholm, Sweden), traffic flows are multidirectional – thus making more efficient use of the infrastructure– as residential areas and places of work are more evenly distributed across the urban landscape.

Furthermore, the report argues with strong empirical information that increased sustainability of urbanpassenger transport systems can be achieved through modal shifts – by increasing the modal share of publictransport and non-motorized transport modes (walking and bicycling), and by reducing private motorizedtransport. Again, an enhanced focus on urban planning and design is required, to ensure that cities are builtto encourage environmentally sustainable transportation modes. While encouraging a shift to non-motorizedtransport modes, however, the report acknowledges that such modes are best suited for local travel and thatmotorized transport (in particular public transport) has an important role while travelling longer distances.However, in many (if not most) countries there is a considerable stigma against public transport. The privatecar is often seen as the most desirable travel option. There is thus a need to enhance the acceptability ofpublic transport systems. More needs to be done to increase reliability and efficiency of public transport servicesand to make these services more secure and safe.

The report also notes that most trips involve a combination of several modes of transport. Thus, modalintegration is stressed as a major component of any urban mobility strategy. For example, the constructionof a high-capacity public transport system needs to be integrated with other forms of public transport, as wellas with other modes. Such integration with various ‘feeder services’ is crucial to ensure that metros, light railand bus rapid transit (BRT) systems can fully utilize their potential as a ‘high-capacity’ public transport modes.It is therefore essential that planners take into account how users (or goods) travel the ‘last (or first) mile’ ofany trip. By way of an example, it is not much use to live ‘within walking distance’ of a metro (or BRT) station,if this implies crossing a busy eight-lane highway without a pedestrian crossing, or if one is unable to walk tothe station (due to disability, or lack of personal security). Likewise, it is unlikely that urban residents willmake use of metros (and BRTs), if the nearest station is located beyond walking distance, and there is nopublic transport ‘feeder’ services providing access to these stations or no secure parking options for privatevehicles near the stations.

Yet, it is important to note that considerable investments are still required in urban transportationinfrastructure in most cities, and particularly in developing countries. City authorities should ensure that suchinvestments are made where they are most needed. They should also make sure that they are commensuratewith their financial, institutional and technical capacities. In many cities of developing countries, large proportionsof the population cannot afford to pay the fare required to use public transport, or to buy a bicycle. Others

Introduction v

may find these modes of transport affordable, but choose not to use them as they find the safety and securityof public transport to be inadequate (due to sexual harassment or other forms of criminal behaviour), and/orthe roads to be unsafe for bicycle use or walking (due to lack of appropriate infrastructure). Investment ininfrastructure for non-motorized transport or affordable (and acceptable) public transport systems is a moreequitable (and sustainable) use of scarce funds.

However, many cities and metropolitan areas, all around the world, experience considerable institutional,regulatory and governance problems when trying to address urban mobility challenges. In many cases national,regional and local institutions may be missing or their responsibilities may be overlapping, and even in conflictwith each other. To address such concerns, the report notes that it is essential that all stakeholders in urbantransport – including all levels of government, transport providers and operators, the private sector, and civilsociety (including transport users) – are engaged in the governance and development of urban mobility systems.

To ensure effective integration of transportation and urban development policies, it is essential that urbantransportation and land-use policies are fully integrated. Such integration is required at all geographic scales.At the micro level, much is to be gained from advancing the model of ‘complete streets’; an acknowledgementthat streets serve numerous purposes, not just moving cars and trucks. At the macro level, there is considerablescope for cross-subsidies between different parts of the urban mobility system, including through value-capturemechanisms which ensure that increased land and property values (generated by the development of high-capacity public transport systems) benefits the city at large, and the wider metropolitan region, rather thanprivate sector actors alone.

Planning and Design for Sustainable Urban Mobility: Global Report on Human Settlements 2013is released at a time when the challenges of urban transportation demands are greater than ever. This isparticularly the case in developing countries where populations (and the number of motorized vehicles) aregrowing at rates where urban infrastructure investments are unable to keep pace. I believe this report willserve as a starting point to guide local authorities and other stakeholders to address the challenges faced byurban transportation systems all over the world. The report provides some thought-provoking insights on howto build the cities of the future in such a manner that the ultimate goal of urban transport – namely enhancedaccess to destinations, activities, services and goods – takes precedence over ever-increasing calls for increasedurban mobility.

Dr Joan ClosUnder-Secretary-General and Executive Director

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)

Planning and Design for Sustainable Urban Mobilityvi

Management Team

Eduardo López Moreno (Branch Coordinator),Mohamed Halfani (Unit Leader), and Inge Jensen(project coordinator).

Authors: UN-Habitat Core Team

Anne Amin, Ben Arimah, Kevin John Barrett,Mohamed Halfani, Inge Jensen, Michael K. Kinyanjui,Udo Mbeche, Eduardo López Moreno, RaymondOtieno Otieno, and Edlam Abera Yemeru.

Authors: External Consultants

Robert Cervero (Chapters 1, 5 and 10); HolgerDalkmann, Robin King, Srikanth Shastry and DarioHidalgo and Juan Carloz Muñoz (Chapter 3); Jean-Paul Rodrigue (Chapter 4); David Banister (Chapter7); Elliott Sclar (Chapter 8); Harry T. Dimitriou(Chapter 9); and Christopher Horwood (main authorof Abridged Edition).

Authors/Contributors: UN-HabitatInterns

Susanna Ahola, Helen Conlon, Lauren Flemister, EvaKabaru, Patricia Karamuta Baariu, Sarah Karge, CrispusKihara, Eulenda Mkwanazi, Michelle Oren, OyanSolana, and Isabel Wetzel.

Technical Support Team (UN-Habitat)

Nelly Kan’gethe, and Naomi Mutiso-Kyalo.

Advocacy, Outreach andCommunication Team (UN-Habitat)

Victor Mgendi, Ana B. Moreno, and Austin Ogola.

International Advisers (HS-NetAdvisory Board Members)1

Samuel Babatunde Agbola, Louis Albrechts, Paul A.Barter, Peter Droege, Ingemar Elander, Xavier Godard,Ali Soliman Huzayyin, Alfonso Iracheta, A.K. Jain, WonBae Kim, Darshini Mahadevia, David Maunder, AsteriaLeon Mlambo, Aloysius Mosha, Mee Kam Ng, DeikePeters, Debra Roberts, Pamela Robinson, FrancescRobusté, Elliott Sclar, Graham Tipple, Iván Tosics,Eduardo Alcantara de Vasconcellos, Vanessa Watson,and Belinda Yuen.

Other International Advisers

Heather Allen, Roger Allport, Paul Barter, StephenBennett, Manfred Breithaupt, Darren Briggs, DawnChui, Susan Claris, Sayel Cortes, Barbara Crome,Eduardo Alcantara de Vasconcellos, Gerard de Villiers,Laurent Dauby, Rodrigo Diaz, Ed Dotson, FabioDuarte, Tony Dufays, Timothy Durant, MichaelEngelskirchen, Ryan Falconer, Ricardo Fernandez,Oscar Figueroa, Laura Frost, Ann Frye, AimeeGauthier, Margaret Grieco, Josef Hargrave, SalvadorHerrera, Christof Hertel, Dario Hidalgo, RichardHiggins, Walter Hook, Paola Jirón, Yildigoz Kaan,Shailendra Kaushik, Robin King, Michael Kodransky,Christopher Kost, Vincent Leiner, Amy Leitch, TrentLethco, Stephanie Lotshaw, Nick Low, BertramLudwig, Hilda Martinez, Greg McGill, TracyMcMillan, Richard Meakin, Minna Melleri, GiselaMéndez, Mohamed Mezghani, Adrien Moulin, Ulrik Sylvest Nielsen, Tiago Oliveira, Konrad Otto-Zimmerman, Tejas Pande, Carlos Felipe Pardo,Eleonora Pazos, Rob Pearce, Gina Porter, JérômePourbaix, D.C. Prakash, Nuno Quental, TomRichardson, Philipp Rode, Brooke A. Russell, ClaudioAlberto Sarmiento, David Singleton, Susanne Stölting,Tasuku Takahama, Jeff Turner, Philip Turner,

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Marianne Vanderschuren, Kevin Vervuurt, TonyVickers, Wendy Walker, E. John Ward, Mark Watts,Glen Weisbrod, and Colin Williams.

Advisers (UN-Habitat)

Debashish Bhattacharjee, Lilia Blades, Jean Bonzi,Andre Dzikus, Vincent Kitio, Yvonne Kunz, GoraMboup, Hilary Murphy, Bernard Gyergyay, OyebanjiO. Oyeyinka, Laura Petrella, Christian Schlosser,Anna Skibevaag, and Xing Quan Zhang.

Financial Support

UN-Habitat is grateful for the financial supportprovided by the governments of Norway and Sweden.

Publishing Team

Alice Aldous, Nicki Dennis, Joanna Endell-Cooper,Alex Hollingsworth, Tracey Scarlett, and FlorenceProduction.

Note1 The HS-Net Advisory Board consists of experienced researchers in

the human settlements field, selected to represent the variousgeographical regions of the world. The primary role of the AdvisoryBoard is to advise UN-Habitat on the substantive content andorganization of the Global Report on Human Settlements.

Planning and Design for Sustainable Urban Mobilityviii

Mobility flows are a key dynamic of urbanization, withthe associated infrastructure invariably constitutingthe backbone of urban form. Yet, despite theincreasing level of urban mobility worldwide, manyof the world’s cities face unprecedented challengesto urban mobility systems, particularly in developingcountries.

This report examines the state of urban mobilityin different parts of the world in light of thesechallenges. It explores the linkages between urbanform and mobility systems, with a view to determiningthe essential conditions for promoting the sustainablemovement of people and goods in urban settings.

ACCESSIBILITY IS AT THE CORE OF URBANMOBILITYA major point of departure for this report is that the prevailing challenges of urban mobility are con -sequences of the preoccupation with the means ofmobility rather than its end – which is the realizationof accessibility. It urges urban planners and decision-makers to move away from a ‘transport bias’ in urbanmobility planning, towards a focus on the human right to equitable access to opportunities. Thus, thereport calls for a paradigm shift in transport policy,emphasizing the need to reduce the global pre -occupation with mobility enhancement and infra -structure expansion.

The accessibility focus for sustainable mobilityalso entails paying due consideration to the built formof the city, particularly the optimization of urbandensity and the fostering of a sense of place. Further,it enhances economies of agglomeration, and en -courages non-motorized mobility. The backbone ofaccessibility-based urban mobility is public transport,particularly well-integrated high-capacity publictransport systems.

THE TRANSPORT BIAS OF MOBILITYGlobally, the transport bias of urban mobility isdemonstrated by the dominance of motorization,particularly private cars as the preferred means ofmobility. In 2005, nearly half of all urban trips weremade by private motorized modes, primarily due tothe meteoric increase in the number of motorvehicles. By 2035, the number of light-duty motorvehicles – cars, SUVs, light trucks and mini-vans – isprojected to reach nearly 1.6 billion (see Figure 1).Moreover, a redistribution of the ‘global travel pie’is unfolding as developing countries are responsiblefor this increase.

The high rates of car ownership have beenfavoured by heavy investments in road infrastructure,sprawling urban forms and increased per capitaincomes. Consequently, global motorization has led to increased energy use and carbon emissionsworldwide. Rapid motorization is further compounded

THE URBAN MOBILITY CHALLENGE

C H A P T E R 1

Planning and Design for Sustainable Urban Mobility2M

illio

n

1980 1990 2000 2008 2020 2035

Vehi

cles

per

tho

usan

d p

eop

le

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800 China

Other non-OECD

United States

Other OECD

Ownership rate:OECD (right axis)

Ownership rate:non-OECD (right axis)

Figure 1

Passenger light-duty vehicle fleet and ownership rates by region (1980–2035)

Source: IEA, 2010.

Residents in many cities all around the world have to cope with inadequate transport infrastructure (Kathmandu, Nepal)

Source: © Hung Chung Chih / Shutterstock

by expanding globalization, rising trade flows andincomes, leading to an enhanced demand for personalmobility. A number of other factors – such as eco -nomic policies that maintain fuel subsidies andplanning practices that incentivize suburban resi -dential developments, large malls and retail centreswith extensive parking – also play a role in increasingmotorization.

The fragmentation and sectoralization of themanagement of urban development in many parts ofthe world is also reinforcing the dominance of thetraditional ‘transport bias’ in urban mobility systems.The poor linkage between land-use planning andtransport planning has encouraged the tendencytowards increased transport investments.

TRENDS AND CONDITIONSIN TRANSPORT-ORIENTEDMOBILITY SYSTEMSThe role of public transport in cities varies widely,accounting for 45 per cent of urban trips in some citiesof Eastern Europe and Asia, 10–20 per cent in muchof Western Europe and Latin America, and less than5 per cent in North America and Sub-Saharan Africa.In most of Sub-Saharan Africa, and poorer parts ofSouth and South-Eastern Asia, government-sponsoredpublic transport services are either inade quate or non-existent. Despite growing concerns over energysupplies, climate change and access for the poor,public transport’s modal share of trips is expected todecline over the next decade in all world regions.

Worldwide, the informal transport sectorprovides much-needed (and much-valued) mobility,particularly for the poor. The lack of affordable and

The Urban Mobility Challenge 3

Multi-lane freeways, flyovers and tunnels encourage private motorization, urban sprawl and fragmentation of the urban fabric (Oakland,California, US)

Source: © Mark Downey / Alamy

accessible public transport systems in developingcountries has led to the proliferation of informaloperators, such as private microbus and minibusservices. In some settings, informal carriers are theonly forms of public transport available.

Non-motorized transportation is often thedominant mode of urban mobility when publictransport services are poor and incomes are low. In2005, about 37 per cent of urban trips worldwidewere made by foot or bicycle, the two major modesof urban non-motorized transport. In African cities,walking accounts for 30–35 per cent of all tripswhile in South Asia’s densest, most congested cities,more than half of all passenger and goods trips areby foot, bicycle or rickshaw. Evidence suggests thatnon-motorized transport is an important componentin poorer and smaller cities, capturing as much as 90 per cent of all person-trips.

Traffic congestion is an undesirable by-productof widespread mobility in cities worldwide, and a

major factor in restricting access in cities. It hasextensive impacts on the urban quality of life, con -sumption of fossil fuels, air pollution, and economicgrowth and prosperity. Studies from the 1990sestimated that traffic congestion lowered the grossdomestic product of cities by some 3–6 per cent.

SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGES OF URBANMOBILITYA sustainable urban mobility system is one thatsatisfies current mobility needs of cities withoutcompromising the ability of future generations tomeet their own needs. Neglecting the connectionbetween land-use and mobility has created theurban sprawl evidenced in most cities today.Differences in the urban form – emerging either from

Planning and Design for Sustainable Urban Mobility4

Motorized vehicles are a major contributor to air and noise pollution, as well as emissions that cause climate change (Kano, Nigeria)

Source: © Danita Delimont / Alamy

a haphazard process of locating settlements andactivities, or from strategically planned intervention– can create big differences in mobility systems. Keyconsiderations include the pattern of street arrange -ment, the length of blocks, and the relationship ofbuildings to pathways, stations and central places.

Urban transport is socially sustainable whenmobility benefits are equally and fairly distributed,with few if any inequalities in access to transportinfrastructure and services based on income, socialand physical differences. Social sustainability is rootedin the principle of accessibility, wherein equalityexists among all groups in terms of access to basicgoods, services and activities, and to enable peopleto participate in civic life.

Many of the environmental challenges in theurban transport sector are rooted in its reliance onnon-renewable fossil fuels. Increasing greenhouse gasemissions and global temperatures underscore theurgency of weaning the transport sector from itsdependency on oil and automobility. The urbantransport sector is also a major source of air and noisepollution, with serious public health impacts.

The urban transport sector is economicallysustainable when resources are efficiently used anddistributed, maximizing the benefits and minimizingthe external costs of mobility. Urban transportinfrastructure is expensive. Accordingly, crafting reli -able and equitable funding programmes for transportinfrastructure that reward efficient and sustainablebehaviour remains a challenge. Public transportsystems face serious fiscal challenges as, almostuniversally, they rely on public subsidies.

Translating visions and plans for sustainableurban mobility depends on the presence of supportive

and nurturing governance, including sound institu -tional and regulatory structures. The lack of adequateinstitutional capacity – whether in the form of atrained and educated civil-service talent pool, or a transparent and largely corruption-free procurementprocess for providing transport infrastructure andservices – poses immense challenges in advancingsustainable urban transport. Institutional fragmen -tation undermines the ability to coordinate urbantransportation services. In addition, bloated bureau -cracies are notorious for waste and delays in thedeployment of urban transport projects. Lack ofcapacity for strategic planning and coordination isanother major problem worldwide.

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORTThis report is organized as follows:

• Chapters 2, 3, and 4 review global conditions andtrends in passenger and goods transport.

• Chapter 5 looks at the linkages between urbanform and mobility.

• Chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9 describe policy responsesto the urban mobility crisis by focusing on thesocial, environmental, economic and institutionaldimensions of sustainability.

• Chapter 10 summarizes the key findings of thereport, focusing on broad practices, policy, andstrategy recommendations aimed at sustainableurban mobility.

The Urban Mobility Challenge 5

THE STATE OF URBAN PASSENGERTRANSPORT

C H A P T E R 2Urban transport trends and conditions indicate thatcities remain inaccessible for many urban residentsin spatial/physical or socio-economic terms. Thischapter provides an overview of the state of urbanpassenger transport globally, focusing on four keymodes of transport: non-motorized transport, formalpublic transport, informal (motorized) transport andprivate motorized transport.

NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTNon-motorized transport, and particularly walking, isthe principal means of transportation in most citiesof developing countries (see Figure 2). This is largely

not by choice, but rather driven by the lack ofaffordable and accessible alternatives, with mostpedestrians belonging to lower income groups.

Cycling caters for the mobility needs ofnumerous urban dwellers in the cities of developingcountries, especially in Asia. Recently, however, therehas been a decline in cycling in some Asian cities,due to rising incomes and concomitant motorization,including changing social perceptions, which tend toview cycling as a means of transport for the poor.

Bicycle ownership is high in developed countries,particularly in Western European countries such asthe Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. This hasbeen attributed to the transport and land-use policiesintroduced since the mid-1970s in these countriesin favour of non-motorized and public transportfacilities.

User benefits: Increased user convenience, comfort, safety, accessibility and enjoyment as well as savings from reduced vehicleownership and use.

Equity objectives: Benefits economically, socially or physically disadvantaged people.

Congestion reduction: Reduced traffic congestion from private cars on congested roadways.

Roadway and parking Reduced roadway and parking construction, maintenance and operating costs.cost savings:

Energy conservation: Economic and environ mental benefits from reduced energy consumption.

Pollution reduction: Economic and environ mental benefits from reduced air, noise and water pollution.

Land-use impacts: Encourages more accessible, compact, mixed, infill development (smart growth).

Improved productivity: Increased economic productivity by improving accessibility and reducing costs.

Source: Adapted from Litman, 2013.

Table 1

Non-motorized transport benefits

Most cities of developing countries have poorquality infrastructure for non-motorized transport.Poor lighting, absence of footpaths and overcrowdingmake walking unsafe in these countries. Publicexpenditures tend to focus on provision of infra -structure for the small minority that can afford to owna private car, in effect subsidizing the wealthiest roadusers.

In developed countries, pedestrian infrastructurehas rapidly improved in recent decades, with anumber of Western European cities investing heavilyin pedestrian areas and dedicated lanes. In contrast,

investments to improve infrastructure for walking andcycling in the US have been limited.

A major advantage of non-motorized transportis that it reduces energy consumption, greenhousegas emissions and pollution, as it does not rely onfossil fuels (see Table 1). Furthermore, such transportmodes require significantly less road and parkingspace, and enable the preservation of natural habitatsand open spaces. Cycling and walking can also directlyprovide the daily physical activity required for ahealthy life style.

The State of Urban Passenger Transport 7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage of all trips

Paris (France)

Toronto (Canada)

Melbourne (Australia)

Bogotá (Colombia)

Sydney (Australia)

Taipei (China)

Rome (Italy)

London (UK)

Singapore

Prague (Czech Republic)

Curitiba (Brazil)

Dar es Salaam (Tanzania)

Osaka (Japan)

Bangalore (India)

Delhi (India)

Mumbai (India)

Vienna (Austria)

Ahmedabad (India)

Madrid (Spain)

Shanghai (China)

Tokyo (Japan)

Barcelona (Spain)

Lagos (Nigeria)

Berlin (Germany)

Addis Ababa (Ethiopia)

Nairobi (Kenya)

Beijing (China)

Douala (Cameroon)

Dakar (Senegal)

Public transport Private motorized transport OtherNon-motorized transport

Figure 2

Urban travel modal shares in selected cities

FORMAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT

The modal share of public transport has decreasedor stagnated in most cities of developing countries,and few efficient formal public transport systemsremain. Typically, public transport is operated by agrowing number of entrepreneurial individuals orsmall/medium-sized companies, but with low invest -ment and minimal public support. Public transportin these cities has been characterized by weak regula -tion, scarcity of supply, poor quality, and the pre -dominance of informal sector operators.

Some encouraging trends have, however, beenobserved. In Africa, bus rapid transit (BRT) systemshave been introduced in Lagos and Johannesburg,generating substantial benefits for residents. Alsonotable are China’s growing investments in metro andBRT systems, servicing millions of passengers inurban areas. A growing number of urban BRT systems

in Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela havealso expanded public transport services significantly.

In developed countries, most cities are main -taining or increasing the market share of formalpublic transport. In North America and WesternEurope, the annual number of public transportpassengers has been increasing since the 1960s and1970s, despite rising car ownership and suburbansprawl. In terms of the regulatory aspects of publictransport provision, since the 1980s there has beena shift from publicly owned provision to a privately-owned market-driven approach.

Globally, there has been a lack of adequateinvestment in public transport. In most developingcountries, urban public transport infrastructure is farfrom adequate and in poor condition. Also, previouslysubsidized public transport services have been scaledback or discontinued amidst policies of liberalizationand economic reform in some developing countries.The provision of public transport infrastructure iscomparatively better in cities in some key emerging


Rail-based transportation systems carry significant numbers of poor people, particularly in large cities (Mumbai, India)

Source: © dbimages / Alamy

markets, such as South Africa and Brazil. In contrast,many cities of developed countries have seen invest -ment and improving services, increasingly throughpublic–private partnerships.

The value of expanding public transport servicesto enhance accessible mobility in cities is unques -tionable. The economic benefits of public transportinvestment include both direct job creation andindirect support of manufacturing, construction andother economic activities. Furthermore, public trans -port moves more people with fewer vehicles, lessenergy, and less space consumption. In social terms,access to jobs, education, health services and otherfacilities – all of which are central to social inclusion– is increased by public transport provision.

Projections of future population growth andmotorization amidst a lack of road capacity, suggestthat if public transport does not double its modalshare, many cities may well grind to a halt. Urbanplanning and land-use policies – together with

transport demand and fiscal measures – can encour -age a shift in transport behaviour towards publictransport. However, investments in public transportshould focus on the qualitative factors of these modes– such as convenience, comfort, security, safety andprestige – as these are valued more highly than isassumed by a conventional focus on quantitativefactors such as speed and price.

INFORMAL TRANSPORTInformal transport is firmly entrenched in the citiesof developing countries, often accounting for over half of all motorized trips. In Africa, private carriersdominate, mainly minibuses and shared taxis withschedules and fares varying with demand, routesbeing semi-fixed and stopping points unregulated. The lower investments required from operators of


Walking accounts for the largest proportion of trips taken, although not of distance travelled, in most societies, rich or poor (Nairobi,Kenya)

Source: © John Warburton-Lee Photography / Alamy

Planning and Design for Sustainable Urban Mobility10informal transport services are a key incentive forentry into this sector. Informal transport is a pre -dominant mode in most of Latin America, with theproliferation of vans and minibuses encouraged by alowering of import tariffs and the inability of publictransport to meet transport demand. Because of rapidmotorization, however, informal carriers are increas -ingly viewed as major contributors to worseningtraffic congestion.

Generally, the role of informal transport appearsto decline as cities in developing countries becomewealthier. This inverse relationship between wealthand informal transport often prompts publicauthorities to ban the latter in the hope of conveyinga modern image. Many cities in developed countriesalso have informal transport services often as nichemarkets for immigrants from countries with a legacyof informal transport.

Informal transport offers distinct service advan -tages, and in most developing countries – whereformal public transport is limited or non-existent –it is often the only dependable service available.With fewer passengers per vehicle, informal trans-port is more frequent, flexible and adaptive, suitedto lower density settings, serves polycentric trippatterns, penetrates the narrow streets of low-costneigh bourhoods, and better negotiates congestedtraffic; and is thus quicker. Vehicles used for informal

transport can also be more energy efficient, owingto higher load factors.

Driven by profit, operators respond quickly tomarket trends, and economize on costs. Importantlyalso, the informal sector is a significant gateway toemployment for many recent immigrants, making upan estimated 15 per cent of total employment in poorcountries. However, safety is one of the numerousdisadvantages of this mode, with accidents occurringbecause of poor (or lack of) driver training, inappro -priate vehicles and poor maintenance. Informaloperators rarely insure vehicles (or passengers), thusfurther aggravating accident impacts.

In environmental terms, informal transportvehicles are significant atmospheric polluters due totwo-stroke engines, excessive oil mixtures, low-gradefuels, and poorly maintained engines. Since mostservice providers are not fully licensed, they mustoften pay bribes, making corruption rife within theinformal transport sector.

PRIVATE MOTORIZED TRANSPORTThe growth of private motorized transport during thetwentieth century had major impacts on the growthand development of cities all over the world. In 2010

3-wheelers

2-wheelers

Light trucks

Cars

Mini-buses

BusesVehi

cle

stoc

k (m

illio

n)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

OECD2005

OECD2050

Non-OECD2005

Non-OECD2050

Figure 3

Total stock of motor vehicles, OECD and non-OECD countries

Source: IEA, 2009.

there were 825 million passenger cars globally. Ofthese, close to 70 per cent were in developed (includ -ing transitional) countries, whilst only 30 per centwere in developing countries, mainly in Asia. Thenumber of light-duty motor vehicles – cars, SUVs,light trucks and mini-vans – is projected to increaseto nearly 1.6 billion by 2035 and more than 2.1 billionby 2050 (see Figure 3).

Globally, the number of new cars sold annuallyincreased from 39 million in the 1990s to nearly 63million in 2012, with Asia accounting for 40 per centof global sales in 2012. The rapidly growing econ -omies of Asia and South America are expected tocontinue driving massive future growth in new-carsales.

Since 1990, vehicle ownership growth rateshave declined in a number of European countries,such as Germany, France, Italy, and also in Japan.

In countries with high car ownership evidencesuggests that travel distances may have peaked, sothat further increases in gross domestic product areunlikely to lead to increased travel distances. Incountries with economies in transition, car ownershiprates have doubled in just a decade (1990–2000).

Whilst car ownership in developing countriesremains significantly lower than in developed coun -tries, ownership in emerging economies is higher thanin most developed countries. With most of the currentand future growth in population and urban izationtaking place in developing countries, the potential forfurther motorization is substantial.

Globally, the provision of road space and parkingfor vehicles varies considerably, partly reflectingdifferent strategies adopted by cities towards privatemotorized travel. A key objective of urban transportinvestment in many developing countries has been


The perceived advantages of convenience, privacy and status continue to make the private car an attractive means of urban transport(São Paulo, Brazil)

Source: © Andre M. Chang / Alamy

to increase road space for motorized transport. Yetnew road infrastructure tends to generate additionaltraffic. There is need to move away from simply pre -dicting growth in motorization, in order to provideadditional infrastructure and move towards demandmanagement within the framework of an overallstrategy for sustainability.

The perceived advantages of convenience,privacy and status continue to make the private caran attractive means of urban transport. Moreover, theprivate motorized transport industry generatesnumerous economic benefits, including direct em -ploy ment in manufacturing, indirect employment ininfrastructure and services (fuel stations, main -tenance, second hand markets, policing, emergencyservices), and major investments in urban areas (roadconstruction). Overall, the automotive industry sup -ports around 5 per cent of the total global workforce.

However, a considerable range of externalitiesarise from increased motorization in cities, thusdwarfing its benefits. Being heavily dependent on oil,one of the most significant impacts of private motor -ized transport is on the environment, health andsafety. A further externality of private motorizedtransport is traffic congestion, which imposes signifi -cant costs on economic efficiency through reducedproductivity.

INTERMODALITY IN URBAN TRANSPORTModal integration is also an essential prerequisite forurban accessibility. The four modes of urban transportdiscussed in this chapter are highly complementaryin that urban trips are often multi-modal.

While the critical importance of intermodalityin enabling accessibility in cities is recognized,interventions designed to enhance integration varyacross countries. Cities in Western Europe havetaken the lead in facilitating modal integration, espe -cially between public and non-motorized transport.However, modal integration has been given minimalconsideration in cities of developing countries. Inthese cities, although not by design, informal and non-motorized modes do serve as an important gap fillerby feeding other transport modes.

Several attempts to facilitate intermodalitybetween non-motorized and public transport in citieshave focused on integrating cycling. The contributionof walking as a feeder to public transport systems hasalso been emphasized, especially in cities ofdeveloping countries.


The main high-capacity public transport options –metro, light rail and bus rapid transit (BRT) – offersolutions for improving urban mobility, quality of life and the environment in both developed anddeveloping countries, providing a competitive alterna -tive to private cars. These systems are strategic inshap ing urban form, promoting higher densities,includ ing mixed and accessible land use.

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF METRO, LIGHT RAIL AND BRT SYSTEMSThe introduction of metro, light rail and/or BRT canprovide important benefits to a city: it can improvethe efficiency of the urban economy by reducing travelcost and time; it can increase the level of city-centreactivity, thereby enhancing agglomeration economieswhich are crucial for the prosperity of urban areas;and it can reduce road congestion. In cities wherethese modes are dominant, the access to oppor -tunities and services is improved, benefiting theurban poor in a number of ways.

Metro is an urban electric transport systemusing rail tracks, exhibiting high capacity and a highfrequency of service. With metros, a carrying capacityof more than 30,000 passengers per hour perdirection is possible. Accordingly, metro systemsrequire huge investment, and are often implementedas the preferred option of large cities where demandjustifies that high capital cost.

Light rail can be described as an electric rail-borne transport, which can be developed in stagesto increase capacity and speed. The general term ‘lightrail’ covers those systems whose role and performancelie between a conventional bus service and a metro.Therefore, they are flexible and expandable. Giventhe relatively high cost of light rail systems, they areoften found in wealthy cities, and in proximity to high-income developments.

BRT is a bus-based mode of public transportoperating on exclusive right-of-way lanes at thesurface level. It is considered a high quality customer-oriented public transport that is fast, safe, comfort -able, reliable and cost-effective. The best BRT systemsflexibly combine stations, bus services, busways andinformation technologies into an integrated systemwith a strong identity.

The main physical characteristics of metro, light rail and BRT systems are outlined in Table 2.Capacity, commercial speed and cost are the keyvariables for evaluating high-capacity public transportsystems.

NATIONAL POLICIESTOWARD HIGH-CAPACITYPUBLIC TRANSPORT INDEVELOPING COUNTRIESRail-based public transport systems have been a natural part of the development of urban

METRO, LIGHT RAIL AND BRT

C H A P T E R 3


Running ways Rail tracks Rail tracks Roadway

Type of right of way Underground/elevated/at-grade Usually at-grade – some applications Usually at-grade – some applications elevated or underground (tunnel) elevated or underground (tunnel)

Segregation from the rest Total segregation (no interference) Usually longitudinal segregation Usually longitudinal segregation of the traffic (at grade intersections) – some (at grade intersections) – some

applications with full segregation applications with full segregation

Type of vehicles Trains (multi-car) Trains (two to three cars) or single cars Buses

Type of propulsion Electric Electric (few applications diesel) Usually internal combustion engine(diesel, CNG) – some applicationswith hybrid transmission (diesel/CNG-electric) or electric trolleybuses

Stations Level boarding Level boarding or stairs Level boarding

Payment collection Off-board Usually off-board Off-board

Information technology Signalling, control, user information, Signalling, control, user information, Control, user information, systems advanced ticketing (magnetic/ advanced ticketing (magnetic/ advanced ticketing (electronic cards)

electronic cards) electronic cards)

Service plan Simple; trains stopping at every Simple; trains stopping at every station From simple to very complex; station between terminals; few between terminals combined services to multiple lines; applications with express services express, local – some combined with or short loops direct services outside the corridor

User information Very clear signage, static maps and Very clear signage, static maps and Very clear signage, static maps and dynamic systems dynamic systems dynamic systems

Image Modern and attractive Modern and attractive Advanced as compared with standardbuses

Note: Characteristics for high performance metro, light rail and BRT; CNG = compressed natural gas.

Source: Fouracre et al., 2003; Vuchic, 2007; Federal Transit Administration, 2009.

Table 2

Main physical characteristics of metro, light rail and BRT

Component Metro Light rail BRT

infrastructure in developed countries. In the last 15 years, several cities in developing countries havestarted implementing BRT systems, with some initiat-ing or expanding light rail and metros. Further-more, national governments are co-financing publictransport infrastructure in order to support the largeproportion of the population now living in urban areas. The report elaborates the following examples:

• China, which has initiated demonstration projectsin thirty selected cities.

• India, where encouraged by Delhi’s success, sixother Indian cities have metro systems underconstruction, while metro systems in anothereleven cities are in various planning stages.

• Brazil, where every city with more than 20,000inhabitants (i.e. some 1,600 cities) is required to

develop a mobility master plan linked to its urban development plans. Thirty-one cities inBrazil currently have BRT systems or busways.

• Mexico, where since 2008 a federal programmefor public transport has given financial support toeleven BRT systems and one suburban rail system.Furthermore, pipeline projects in thirty-four citiesare also earmarked for such funding.

• Kenya, where in 2012 the government, supportedby the World Bank, launched an urban transportimprovement project to support the developmentof selected high-capacity public transport corri -dors.

• Morocco, which has light rail systems in thecities of Casablanca and Rabat-Salé.

• Nigeria, where in Lagos a BRT system is beingimple mented.

• South Africa, where there is a national com -mitment that by 2020, most city residents are tobe no more than 500 metres away from a BRTstation.

METRO SYSTEMS AROUND THE WORLDThe world market for railway infrastructure andequipment has been growing at 3.2 per cent a year,

and is set to grow at around 2.7 per cent annually,until 2017. Spending on metro rail systems shouldgrow faster still, at perhaps 6–8 per cent. Currently,187 cities have the metro system as part of theirpublic transport system (see Figure 4).

A comparison between metro systems worldwidereveals the following trends:

• A majority of these cities have very large popu -lations.

• Urban areas with metro systems have often

Metro, Light Rail and BRT 15

Metros provide cities with the means to move large numbers of people, while consuming fewer resources (Hong Kong, China)

Source: © Evgenia Bolyukh / Shutterstock

extended or grown beyond their established boun -daries, engulfing surrounding areas and adjacenttowns and sometimes expanding into differentprovinces. This implies that the govern ance ofmetro systems must go beyond the traditional citylimits.

• Many of the cities with metro systems are eithercapital cities or large cities. Capital cities accountfor nine of the sixteen cities with the world’slargest metro systems and 27 per cent of all citieswith metros.

LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS AROUND THE WORLDLight rail systems have proliferated in both developedand developing countries in the last two decades, withmany cities in Asia, Africa and Latin America re-introducing light rail systems. Currently, there areapproximately 400 light rail and tram systems inoperation worldwide, while construction of additionalsystems is on-going in sixty cities.

The growing popularity of light rail systems canbe attributed to their ability to provide significanttransport capacity without the expense and densityneeded for metro systems. However, many light railsystems are challenged by ageing or obsolete assets.

As a result, transport authorities in many cities arerejuvenating their existing light rail infrastructure orconstructing completely new systems.

BRT SYSTEMS AROUND THE WORLDCompared to metro and light rail systems, BRT is arelatively recent phenomenon, starting with theimplementation of the first busway in Curitiba (Brazil) in the early 1970s.As of mid-2013, there were156 cities worldwide with BRT and bus corridors,most of them implemented in the last decade (seeFigure 5).

Since BRT and metro systems are both rapidpublic transport systems, a comparison of their growthand performance is inevitable. However, BRT systemsare not yet comparable to metro systems in terms oftheir total track length and daily demand. The longestmetro system (Beijing) is 3.3 times longer than thelongest BRT system (Jakarta), while the most popular(in terms of daily ridership) (London) carries fourtimes more passengers than the most used BRT (SãoPaulo).

Recently, African cities have made remarkablestrides in developing BRT as part of their publictransport systems. In 2008, Lagos launched a ‘BRT


Figure 4

Metro systems around the world

Source: Based on data from http://mic-ro.com/metro/table.html, last accessed 5 June 2013.


1–79 km

80–199 km

200–599 km

600 km or more

31

18

6

14

6

1

62

13

1

2

6

53

11

1

13

14

1

2 2

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

2

11

1

1

1

2

Figure 5

BRT systems around the world (mid-2013) (number of cities and system lengths)

Source: Based on data from http://mic-ro.com/metro/table.html, last accessed 5 June 2013.

Road-based public transport systems can offer efficient and effective access to urban activities (Bogotá, Colombia)

Source: © Jeremy Pembrey / Alamy

lite’ corridor (a high-quality system that is affordablein the local context, while retaining as many of thedesirable BRT characteristics as possible). With theimpetus from the 2010 World Cup, three SouthAfrican cities (Johannesburg, Cape Town and PortElizabeth) have initiated BRT lines.

MAIN CHALLENGES FACING HIGH-CAPACITY PUBLICTRANSPORT SYSTEMSDespite their growth, high-capacity public transportsystems still face a number of challenges, especiallyin developing countries. These include: integrationwithin the public transport system; integration withother elements of the transport system; integrationwith the built environment; quality of service; lackof finance and institutions.

Integration within the public transportsystem and with other modes of transport occursat three levels: physical, operational and fare inte -gration. Physical integration allows for direct con nec -tions from one service to another, usually includingtransfer facilities and terminals. It is also importantto provide adequate connectivity with other com -ponents of the urban transport system, such aswalking, biking, taxis, informal transport services, carsand motorcycles. Further, adequate space is neededat important integration points, particularly in theperiphery of cities, to ensure that different types ofusers are able to connect to the public trans portsystem, and avoid using cars to go to the city centre.

Accessible development suited for publictransport (also known as transit-oriented develop -ment) involves merging complementary land use andplanning with high-capacity public transport systems.This encourages compact, pedestrian and public-transport-friendly environments that are integrated


A mixture of high-capacity public transport options and exclusive rights-of-way improve the efficiency of public transport systems (HongKong, China)

Source: © ChameleonsEye / Shutterstock

into the surrounding area. Integrating public trans -port systems and the built environment makesboth the public transport system and the city suc -cessful. High density (combined with disincentivesto private car ownership and use) increases ridership,while public transport provides opportunities fordense, accessible, mixed-use urban environments.Consequently, shorter trips can be completed on footor bicycle.

Quality of service involves several elements,including: travel time, reliability, safety and security,comfort and user information. The most advancedpublic transport systems in the world include all thesedimensions of quality. Many advanced systems indeveloping countries have high quality services, butmay not include the first and last leg of the trip (i.e.walking to and from the station). ‘Universal design’– which is an important aspect of inclusive publictransport systems – is often overlooked. In cities ofdeveloping countries, reliability is not commonlymeasured, and hence not managed. Typically, lightrail and BRT systems in these cities observe train or bus ‘bunching’ (i.e. two or three vehicles arrivingsimultaneously at the stage, and gaps betweenvehicles). This reduces the systems’ capacity andcauses high occupancy for some vehicles, whileothers have excess space.

The availability of finance is essential forefficient urban mobility systems. Conversely, the

absence of finance can constrain the ability of relevantauthorities to implement sustainable high-capacitypublic transport options. A variety of financial riskscan occur when investing, expanding, and maintainingmetros, light rail or BRT systems, which require largeamounts of funding. Accordingly, the following issuesneed to be considered:

• The financial risks in public transport projectdevelopment, i.e. the tendency to underestimatetime and cost (leading to costly overruns for both),and overestimate demand during the decision-making process.

• Funding for capital investments in high-capacitypublic transport requires the participation of alllevels of government.

• Public transport subsidies are efficient and sociallyworthwhile, as public transport involves severalpositive externalities (air quality, climate change,road safety, physical activity).

Urban transport involves multiple institutionsand levels of government which are not always wellcoordinated, resulting in the lack of integrationamong public transport components, other transportmodes, and the built environment. This is furtherexacerbated by the lack of technical and managerialcapacity.


Goods transport is a fundamental component of theurban environment, an issue which until recently wasneglected in the planning process. The challenge isto balance the need to ensuring efficiency of goodstransport, whilst minimizing externalities such ascongestion, the emission of pollutants, noise andaccidents. This is especially so when considering theclose interactions between urban land-use, urbanform and goods transport within an increasinglycontested landscape.

Urban goods transport is concerned withestablishing an effective interface between theregional or global realms of freight transport and thelast mile of urban freight distribution. This last milerequires a shift to different distribution strategiesmore suitable to an urban context, often resulting incongestion, delays and additional costs proportionallyhigher than the distance concerned.

URBAN GOODS TRANSPORT: KEY COMPONENTS ANDACTORSUrban goods transport, as it relates to cities and theirpopulations, is the set of all activities ensuring thattheir material demands are satisfied. The focus is onthe city as a place of production, distribution andconsumption of material goods, but also the handlingof waste as an outcome of these activities.

While the functions of production (e.g. manu -facturing) and consumption (e.g. retailing) remainprominent forms of urban goods transport, global -ization has enabled the expansion of the distributionsector as a more prevalent element of the urbanlandscape, with facilities such as terminals anddistribution centres. City logistics have experi encedsignificant changes, particularly with the concept oflean management, where demand-based supply chainmanagement has enabled a better management ofinventories and less storage requirements.

It is increasingly recognized that the metro -politan area should also be considered as a freightplanning unit. Still, the focus on urban goods trans -port remains limited, partially due to an enduring biasin urban planning concerning freight issues. Ofparticular relevance is containerization, which hasshaped transportation systems in a fundamental way,by providing a load unit that can be handled almosteverywhere, by a variety of modes.

A city is provisioned by hundreds of supplychains servicing numerous economic sectors includinggrocery stores, retail, restaurants, office supplies,raw materials, and parts (for manufacturing), con -struction materials and wastes. There are three maincomponents of city logistics; the modes that carry thefreight, the infrastructures supporting freight flowsand the operations related to their organization andmanagement (see Figure 6).

City logistics, as a ‘last mile’ distributionalstrategy, can take many forms depending on the

URBAN GOODS TRANSPORT

C H A P T E R 4

Urban Goods Transport 21Modes

Ope

ratio

nsInfrastructures

Alternativemodes

Trucks

Scheduling

Parking

Routing

Loading/unloading

Alternativeinfrastructure

Roads

Terminals

Distributioncenters

CityLogistics

Figure 6

Components of city logistics and their relative importance

Freight vehicles are responsible for 10–15 per cent of vehicle-kilometres travelled in cities

Source: © Rouzes / iStockphoto

concerned supply chains, including the urban settingin which it takes place. It involves two main functionalclasses: the first concerning consumer-related dis -tribu tion and the second concerning producer-relateddistribution.

There are four general stakeholder groups thatare shaping urban freight distribution: cargo owners(e.g. retailers, manufacturers, wholesalers); residents;distributors (mostly carriers, third party logisticscompanies and freight forwarders); and planners andregulators.

Planners and regulators try to set rules underwhich urban freight distribution takes place, aimingto satisfy their constituents, including their com -mercial, transport and distribution interests. However,when challenges in city logistics requiring an inter -vention from either a public or private stakeholderemerge, the relationships between stakeholders arelikely to change, which can lead to four possibleoutcomes:

1 Conflicts. Due to the scarcity of space, as well asthe density and the complexity of the urbanlandscape, conflicts between stakeholders arecommon.

2 Cooperation. Usually achieved when additionalmitigation strategies are added to a project (changein design) or to modes of operation. Public–privatepartnerships are examples where private goals andpublic interests can be mitigated.

3 Competition. Freight forwarders compete toattract and retain customers over their freightdistribution services. Commercial and residentialdevelopers are also competing within the land-usezoning framework for real estate projects.

4 Coopetition. A specific form of collaborationbetween private stakeholders, particularly whena stakeholder is unable to individually address anissue or is incited to do so by regulation.

TRENDS AND CONDITIONS OF URBAN GOODSTRANSPORTCities are concomitantly areas of production,distribution and consumption. The growth in globaltrade reflects growing levels of production and

consumption taking place in urban areas. The city isalso increasingly transnational. Gateway cities oftenfulfil the material requirements of whole regions bybeing a point of freight transit and distribution toservice inland destinations.

The material intensiveness of urban freightdistribution depends on local economic, geographicand cultural characteristics. Cities in developedcountries with high standards of living are coping witha high intensity of urban goods transport. In Europe,for instance, a high-income city generates about onedelivery or pick-up per job per week, 300–400 trucktrips per 1,000 people per day, and 30–50 tonnes ofgoods per person per year.

Interestingly, conditions in which urban goodstransport takes place in developing countries showan impressive diversity. Accordingly, it is notsurprising to find state-of-the-art transport facilitiessuch as port terminals, airports and distributioncentres. This aspect of city logistics is therefore onpar with those of developed countries. However, inaddition to formal goods transport, an informal sectorprovides crucial city logistics services to lower-incomegroups in developing countries (see Box 1).

GOODS TRANSPORT IN AN URBAN CONTEXTNo city is alike with respect to the nature andchallenges of its city logistics. In addition to broaderfactors shaping the conditions of urban goodstransport such as geographical settings, history, levelsof economic development and government policies,the urban context shapes goods transport trends inspecific ways.

Urban density is closely associated with patternsof goods transport. While cities in developingcountries tend to have higher densities than cities indeveloped countries, higher income levels indeveloped countries increase the generation of freightper density level. High-density areas are associatedwith high absolute consumption levels, but they canalso result in congestion. Still, high density providesadditional opportunities to consolidate deliveries anduse alternative modes. Further, the distribution ofdensity in relation to the street layout, or urban spatialstructure, also influences goods transport.


Urban Goods Transport 23

Freight distribution centres are an essential component of sustainable cities (Johor Bahru, Malaysia)

Source: © Alessandro / UN-Habitat

In Delhi, motorized tricycles haul small loads requiringfrequent delivery stops, and handle around 60 per cent ofintra-city goods movement, transporting as much as a 5-tonne truck in a day via multiple trips. As well as courierservices, deliveries of groceries, furniture, electronics, etc.,are increasingly made by auto-rickshaws, vans and tricycles,whilst larger informal carriers – such as shared taxis,minibuses, and light vans – are used for longer distances. In South Asia, trip chains involve intermodal connectionsbetween micro-vehicles and large-load haulers at railwaystations, bus depots, distribution centres, etc. Althoughefficient and affordable, the limited income earned byindigenous goods haulers undermines capital investment inmore efficient vehicles. Access to credit can thus be an

important factor for improving city logistics in developingeconomies.

Non-motorized transport is also frequently used forgoods delivery in many cities of developing countries, dueto it being cheap and readily available. In Mumbai, about200,000 tiffin lunch boxes are delivered daily by acombination of non-motorized means, thereby generatingemployment for those involved. Forms of non-motorizedtransport for goods in African cities include three-wheelplatform rickshaws (gudrum matatu in Dar es Salaam), wastecart pushers (kayabola in Accra), and animal drawn carts inSouth African low-income townships for waste picking,scrap metal haulage and coal delivery.

Box 1 Non-motorized informal goods transport in Asia and Africa

Planning and Design for Sustainable Urban Mobility24The urban land-use structure relates to the

organization of economic activities, and impacts upongoods transport. A decentralized and dispersed land-use structure is associated with a disorganized urbangoods transport system, as it becomes problematicto reconcile origins and destinations in urbaninteractions. For instance, delivering the samequantity of goods in a decentralized and dispersedland-use setting generally involves longer trips andmore frequent stops than in a centralized andclustered setting.

Freight distribution, as an activity fundamentalto urban life, consumes a substantial amount of spacein urban areas and competes with other activities forthe use of land and infrastructure. The land used forfreight infrastructure can be particularly extensive inmetropolitan areas that are points of convergence forglobal material flows, and involve several stakeholders.However, the amount of land devoted to freight isnot necessarily related to the size or the level ofconsumption in a city.

Intermodal transportation places tremendouspressure on the land in metropolitan areas, particu -larly those with container terminals and theirancillary facilities. Container port terminal facilitiesoccupy prime waterfront real estate, which is a scarceresource in coastal areas.

Distribution facilities consume a lot of space,as a wide array of added value activities are performedon a one-floor design, including consolidation anddeconsolidation, cross-docking and storage. The spa -tial distribution of industrial, commercial and logistics

facilities has a direct impact on the number of vehicle-kilometres, and the average trip length necessary toreach stores, industries and households.

Another key trend is logistics sprawl, or thespatial de-concentration of logistics facilities inmetropolitan areas. It generates demands for land tosupport urban goods distribution while also impactingthe patterns and modes of commuting. Due to theirlow density and suburban settings, logistics zones aregenerally not well serviced by public transport andcontribute to automobile dependency.

CHALLENGES OF URBANGOODS TRANSPORTThe diffusion of modern freight distribution systemson the urban landscape generates environmental andsocial externalities, ranging from vehicle emissions,accidents and congestion to logistics sprawl.Addressing these externalities represents a set ofenvironmental, economic, social and institutionalchallenges (see Table 3).

EXISTING POLICYRESPONSESUrbanization and its associated growth in materialconsumption have reached a point where a moreconcerted approach to freight distribution is advo -

Environ mental challenges Mitigate environ mental externalities (emissions, noise).Reverse logistic flows (waste and recycling).

Economic challenges Capacity of urban freight trans port systems (congestion).Lower driving speeds and frequent disruptions (reliability).Distribution sprawl (space consumption).E-commerce (home deliveries).

Social and institutional challenges Health and safety (accidents, hazardous materials).Passen ger/freight interferences (conflicts).Access (allowable vehicles, streets and delivery hours).Zoning (land use, logistics zones, urban freight distribution centres).

Table 3

Key challenges in urban goods transport

Challenges Dimensions

Urban Goods Transport 25

Freight transport plays an essential role in the daily lives of all urban residents (New York, US)

Source: © Sam Dao / Alamy

Rationalization of deliveries

Night deliveries Less traffic congestion and faster deliveries. Organization of labour and work shifts. Potential No conflicts with commuting. disruptions to communities and family household

dynamics (due to noise and night work).

Extended delivery windows More delivery options and fewer impacts during Organization of labour and work shifts.peak hours.

Freight facilities

Urban freight distribution centres Better usage of delivery assets. Less traffic congestion. Additional costs and potential delays due toconsolidation. May not well service consigneedelivery requirements (e.g. time).

Local freight stations Less delivery parking. A single consolidation/ Deliveries from freight station to consignee. deconsolidation location. Management costs for the freight station.

Designated delivery parking areas Better access to consignees. Less disruptive deliveries. Fewer parking spaces for passen ger vehicles.

Modal adaptation

Adapted vehicles Less impact on local traffic congestion. Easier to find a More journeys for shipments larger than the load parking spot. Environ mentally friendly vehicles. unit. Additional costs.

Table 4

Main city logistics policies

Strategy Advantages Drawbacks

cated. This requires an understanding of the keychallenges in urban freight distribution and thedissemination of practices and methods, notably datacollection, to enhance urban mobility and sustain -ability. Urban areas are constrained by and subjectto a complex regulatory framework. Oppor tun ities forcollaboration between different stakeholders exist,

as space for urban logistics is a fundamental elementof urban planning.

In many developing countries, the lack ofresources often hinders adequate policy responses.Still, an array of policies have been considered tomitigate urban freight distribution problems, most ofwhich are related to traffic congestion (see Table 4).


Heightened concerns over climate change, risinggasoline prices, traffic congestion and social exclusionhave sparked renewed interest in exploring the linkbetween mobility and urban form. Despite this, mostcities, particularly in developing countries andemerging economies, continue to prioritize motorizedtransport and related urban infrastructure.

There is a wide variety of urban forms, definedby land use and transportation systems that are notconducive to the provision of ‘efficient’ forms of urbanmobility. There can be little doubt that designingneighbourhoods, cities and regions in a way that canreduce private car dependency, promote healthier,more sustainable urban forms and a variety of travelsolutions can make the city more accessible to all.

Accessibility lies at the core of achieving an urbanform that is environmentally sustainable, sociallyequitable and inclusive. Sustainable mobility is anoutcome of how cities and neighbourhoods aredesigned and take form, but it also shapes the urbanform itself. A reinvigorated notion of urban planning,solid institutions and governing structures is thereforerequired.

DECENTRALIZATION, CAR DEPENDENCE AND TRAVELThe dispersal of growth from the urban centre is aworldwide phenomenon. Dispersal, as a form ofdecentralization, at least when it is poorly planned,lies at the heart of unfolding patterns of urban

develop ment that are environmentally, socially andeconomically unsustainable.

While rising affluence and modernization havefuelled the dispersal of cities worldwide, socio-culturalfactors have also played a role. As in China, thetransition to free-market economies has acceleratedsuburban growth throughout Eastern Europe. InIndia, planning policies suppress permissible densitiesto decongest central cities, and have been blamed forinducing sprawl in recent decades. Easy-to-obtaincredit for low-income housing has triggered anexplosive growth in low-cost but isolated residentialenclaves on the outskirts of many Mexican cities.

Urban sprawl is increasingly prevalent in devel -oping countries, and is blamed for consuming scarceagricultural lands and dramatically increasing muni -cipal costs for infrastructure and service delivery.Class and income disparities are deeply embeddedin the spatial arrangements and mobility challengesof many cities of developing countries. In developedcountries, suburban living, associated with thelowering of population and employment densities, hascontributed to rising motorization rates and theenvironmental problems related to car dependency.

The internal combustion engine car technologydeveloped rapidly during the twentieth century,leading to the advent of the automobile city. Theautomobile city allowed development to fill in thewedges between radial corridors of the streetcar cityand metropolitan boundaries, to extend outward fourto five times. As many cities worldwide continue toexperience sprawl, built-up densities become lower.

MOBILITY AND URBAN FORM

C H A P T E R 5


Urban densities strongly influence travel. A 1989cross-sectional comparison of thirty-two cities showedthat transport-related energy consumption declinesprecipitously with urban densities (see Figure 7).Follow-up studies of 37 cities in 1999 found similarresults: low-density cities averaged consid erablyhigher vehicle-kilometres travelled per capita thanhigh-density ones.

In most instances, density is a necessary, thoughnot a sufficient condition for moderating private caruse and fuel consumption. Once certain densitylevels are reached the rate of drop-off tapers, offeringa useful policy guide to the association betweenmobility and urban form. For example, Hong Kongstyle high-rise densities are not needed for majordeclines in energy consumption and motorized

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

00 5000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

Transport-related energy consumptionGigajoules per capita per year

Urban density (inhabitants per square kilometre)

Houston

Phoenix

Detroit

Denver

Los Angeles

San FranciscoBostonWashington

Chicago

New York

TorontoPerthBrisbaneMelbourneSydney

HamburgStockholm

FrankfurtZurichBrusselsMunichWest BerlinVienna

ParisLondon

Tokyo

Singapore

AmsterdamCopenhagen

Moscow

Hong Kong

North American cities

Australian cities

European cities

Asian cities

Figure 7

Influences of urban densities on transport-related energy consumption (1989)

Source: Newman and Kenworthy, 1989.

movements to be achieved. Rather, going from verylow-density sprawl (e.g. the suburbs of car-orientedHouston) to modest densities of town houses andduplexes, produces the biggest declines in transport-sector energy consumption and vehicle-kilometrestravelled.

Density is but one element of urban form thatinfluences travel. The spatial distribution of popula -tion and employment densities is also important.Where people live, work, shop, and socialize sets thestage for travel by defining the location of trip originsand destinations, and thus the length of trips and theenergy they consume.

A mono-centric urban form, wherein the vastmajority of jobs and commercial activities areconcentrated in the city centre and most householdsreside on the periphery, mainly produces radial trips.But while the convergence of vehicles near the centreoften gives rise to extreme road congestion, it alsoallows for heavily patronized radial public transport

networks to thrive. A multi-centred or polycentricform results in more dispersed, lateral and cross-towntravel patterns, which generally favour flexible formsof mobility, like private cars.

Urban land coverage also influences travel.Redirecting growth to the periphery might lessen city-centre traffic congestion at the expense of longer-distance trips, which are more dependent onmotor ized transport (including two- and three-wheelers).

The larger the city, the greater its complexityand the potential to influence future traffic conditions,particularly if not well managed. Larger cities havesignificantly higher average urban densities thansmaller cities and thus higher traffic densities (e.g.vehicles travelling roads per square kilometre).

While urban agglomeration allows for jobspecialization, efficient market transactions andknowledge spillovers, if concentrated growth is notwell planned – such as the integration of urban

Mobility and Urban Form 29

Denser forms of development reduce travel distances, use less energy, and support more efficient urban mobility systems (Zoetermeer,the Netherlands)

Source: © Frans Lemmens / Alamy

growth with metro investments – the resultingeconomic benefits tend to be eroded. Agglomerationdiseconomies – i.e. the inefficiency and loss resultingfrom poorly planned concentrations – is expressedin the form of lost labour productivity from extremetraffic congestion, increasing air pollution and anoverall decline in the quality of urban living.

URBAN DENSITIES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTTHRESHOLDSHigh densities are essential for sustaining cost-effective public transport services. Rail, with its highup-front capital costs and economies of scale, needsto attain a threshold density of trips in order to costless than accommodating the same trips by car or bus.Since rail-based public transport needs high passengervolumes to be cost-effective, it also needs highconcentrations of people and jobs around stations.

Public transport that is cost-effective can onlybe achieved through high urban densities and a largeshare of jobs and retail activities concentrated in theurban core (e.g. Shanghai), or in polycentric citieswith multidirectional travel patterns (e.g. Stockholm).The reliance of public transport on urban density hasprompted efforts to define the minimum densitythresholds required to support successful publictransport services.

However, as there are many city features thatinfluence public transport ridership, some observershave cautioned against a fixation on density.Walkability and the land-use mixes of neighbourhoodsthat surround stations are also important to viablepublic transport services. If people cannot safely andconveniently walk the half-kilometre to or from astation, chances are they will not use public transport.

PLANNING THE ACCESSIBLE CITYCoordinating and integrating urban transport andland development is imperative for creating sus -tainable urban futures. Notably, the design and layoutof a city strongly influences travel demand. Simul -taneously, transportation infrastructure is an essentialfeature that shapes the city. Thus, the coordinationand integration of transport planning and develop -ment, as well as spatial planning and development,is key (see Box 2).

The coordinated planning of urban mobility andland development starts with a collective vision of thefuture city, shared by city government and civilsociety. Local authorities can utilize a range of toolsto influence urban growth, such as land-use regu -lations, infrastructure investments, tax policies (e.g.enterprise districts), and land purchases (e.g. greenbelts). However, experience shows that trans portationinvestments are one of the most important.


‘Compact cities’ or ‘smart growth’ describes urbandevelopment that is compact, resource-efficient, and lessdependent on the use of private cars. As an antidote tosprawl, these terms aim to reduce the municipal fiscalburden of accommodating new growth, while promotingwalking and cycling, historical preservation, mixed-incomehousing that helps reduce social and class segregation, anddiversity of housing and mobility choices that appeal to arange of lifestyle preferences. Ten accepted principles whichdefine such developments are:

1 mixed-land uses;2 compact building design;

3 a range of housing opportunities and choices;4 walkable neighbourhoods;5 distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense

of place;6 preservation of open space, farmland, natural beauty,

and critical environmental areas;7 development directed towards existing communities;8 a variety of transportation choices;9 development decisions that are predictable, fair, and

cost effective; and10 community and stakeholder collaboration in

development decisions.

Box 2 ‘Compact cities’ or ‘smart growth’

Planning the accessible city also involvesincreasing the percentage of urban land allocated tostreets, to enhance connectivity. The overall con -nectivity of the city can be measured by proxy, bycomparing the ratio of urban land allocated to streets with the total land area of the city. While itis im portant for cities to invest in streets, it shouldbe noted, however, that having a high percentage ofurban land allocated to streets is only the first stepin making a city more accessible. There is, in addition,a need to take into account the efficiency of the streetsystem and its adaptability to essential urban mobilitymodes such as high-capacity public transport systems,walking and cycling.

Integrated mobility planning and urban growthneeds to occur at multiple spatial scales – e.g. theregion as a whole, districts and corridors, as well asneighbourhoods. Spatial harmonization betweenthese three levels can be crucial to the successfulintegration of transportation and urban development.

BUILT ENVIRONMENTS AND TRAVEL AT THENEIGHBOURHOOD SCALEAnalysts often express features of built environ-ments along five core dimensions, or the ‘5 Ds’:Density, Diversity, Design, Destination accessibility,and Distance to transit (see Box 3). These 5 Dsstrongly influence travel demand – notably, the num -ber of trips made, the modes chosen and the distancestravelled – and are evident in many contexts andsettings. Both singularly and collectively, the 5 Dsaffect vehicle-kilometres travelled per capita.

A recent analysis in North America concludedthat ‘destination accessibility’ is the most import-ant land use factor that strongly influences travel. On average, a doubling of access to destinations isassociated with a 20 per cent decline in vehicle-kilometres travelled. Other attributes which influence


Urban developments should focus on human-centred, walkable, mixed-use communities, with moderate to high residential densities (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)

Source: © Yadid Levy / Alamy

travel include urban design (e.g. street connectivityand safe, complete sidewalk provisions) and well-sitedpedestrian routes.

Globally, various neighbourhood designs andretrofits are being introduced to reduce the need fortravel by private cars and invite more sustainableforms of mobility. Among these are traditional neigh -bourhoods, also known as new urbanism; transit-oriented development (TOD); and car-restricteddistricts.

Before the advent of the private car, traditionalneighbourhoods were compact and highly walkable.Daily walks, e.g. to shops, restaurants or schoolswhich were no more than five minutes away werecharacteristic of the pre-automobile era. In the early1980s, an urban design movement known as the ‘newurbanism’ was developed in the US. In contrast tothe sameness and sterility of suburban sprawl, thenew urbanism emphasized the fine details of whatmakes communities enjoyable, distinctive, andfunctional.

Transit-oriented development (TOD) istraditional or new urbanism development that isphys i cally oriented to a public transport station.Increasingly, TOD is globally recognized as a viablemodel for shaping urban growth. TOD is most fullydeveloped in Europe, and in particular Scandinavia.

Many European cities have brought liveabilityand pedestrian safety to the forefront of trans -

portation planning. Initiatives have sought to tameand reduce dependence on the private car. Trafficcalming is one such example, pioneered by Dutchplanners who have added speed humps, realignedroads, necked down intersections, and planted treesand flowerpots in the middle of streets to slow downtraffic. With traffic calming, the street becomes an extension of a neighbourhood’s liveable space –a place to walk, chat and play. Car passage becomessecondary. An even bolder policy has been theoutright banning of cars from the core of traditionalneighbourhoods and districts, comple mented by anupgrading and beautification of pedes trian spaces.Illustrative examples from developed countries canbe found in Bremen, Bologna, Siena and Bruges, aswell as substantial portions of university towns likeGröningen, Delft, Oxford, Cambridge, Freiburg andMünster. Extended pedestrian-only shopping streetsand promenades have also gained popularity, such asCopenhagen’s Strøget.

Similarly, multi-block car-free streets andenhanced pedestrian zones also exist in some citiesof developing countries, such as Curitiba. Whileimplementation of these plans has considerablepositive outcomes, consideration needs to be givento ensuring that high-quality and frequent publictransport services are in place to absorb displaced cartraffic.


• Density gauges how many people, workers, or builtstructures occupy a specified land area, such as grosshectares or residentially zoned land.

• Diversity reflects the mix of land uses and the degreeto which they are spatially balanced (e.g. jobs–housingbalance), as well as the variety of housing types andmobility options (e.g. bikeways and motorways).

• Design captures elements, like street layout andnetwork characteristics that influence the likelihood ofwalking or biking – e.g. pedestrian- and bike-friendliness. Street networks vary from dense urbangrids of highly interconnected, straight streets, tosparse suburban networks of curving streets formingloops and ‘lollipops’.

• Destination accessibility measures ease of access totrip destinations, such as the number of jobs or otherattractions that can be reached within 30 minutestravel time.

• Distance to transit is usually measured as theshortest street routes from the residences or work-places in an area to the nearest rail station or bus stop.

These are not separate dimensions and indeed are often co-dependent. Having high-rise housing and office towers willyield few mobility benefits if the two activities are far fromeach other. A diversity of uses and improved accessibility todestinations from home or work are needed if denserdevelopment is to translate into more pedestrian andtransit trips.

Box 3 The five Ds of built environments that influence travel

CORRIDOR CONTEXTSTransport corridors represent the spatial context inwhich significant challenges are often faced incoordinating transportation and land developmentacross multiple jurisdictions. They are also where‘access management’ – trading off the mobility versussite-access functions of roads – can pose significantpolicy challenges, particularly in fast-growing citiesand regions. If well planned and designed, corridorsalso present a spatial context for designing a networkof TODs.

Transportation corridors function to move peopleand goods, but often face intense developmentpressures, which over time can erode their mobilityfunction, particularly in the cities of developingcountries. New roadways open up access to newterritories, spawning building construction and landdevelopment, and thus more traffic. Effectively, theroadway’s role and function transforms – from one

of providing mobility to providing site access. Thetwo roles are in conflict, with the problem accen -tuated when different institutions control infra -structure and land development along the corridor.If a national government or state builds a new roadto improve cross-city traffic flows, local governmentstake advantage of the added capacity by allowing newdevelopment – a means to grow the local economyand generate property tax income.

Some cities have directed land uses that arescattered throughout suburbia – e.g. housing, offices,shops, restaurants, strip malls – to corridors servedby public transport. Scandinavian cities such asStockholm, Helsinki and Copenhagen have creatednetworks of linked TODs – that is, public transportoriented corridors. The mobility and environmentalbenefits from Curitiba’s three-plus decades ofintegrated development along public transportcorridors is well celebrated.


The local street has the potential to be a community centre, the place where people meet (Hamburg, Germany)

Source: © Yadid Levy / Alamy

REGIONAL CONTEXTSFor centuries cities have grown and spilled beyondtheir walls and jurisdictional boundaries. However,the development of city clusters and large urbanagglomerations is more recent. Many countries, espe -cially China, have adopted new towns as the preferredplanning approach previously adopted by Europeanand US cities. Many other cities in developingcountries have also adopted new town approaches toregional development based on clusters.

Some megacities have become so large thatsome countries have moved to planning ‘supracities’.These are network cities with populations of over 40million. In 2010, the Guangdong Provincial Govern -ment in China announced it was planning to createthe world’s biggest ‘megacity’ by merging nine citiesinto a mega-region metropolis.

Increasingly, cities of different sizes have startedmerging and forming new spatial configurations thattake three principal forms, namely: mega-regions,urban corridors and city-regions. Connectivity andregional transport are crucial for the development ofthese large agglomerations.

IMPACTS OF TRANSPORTATIONINVESTMENTS ON URBAN FORMJust as urban form and land-use patterns shape trans -portation, transportation investments shape urbanform. The opening of a new road or public transportline influences the locations, intensities, types ofdevelopment, and the value of land. Accordingly, thechanges in accessibility drive the urban form and land-use changes, following transportation infrastructureinvestments. Matching the infrastructure hardwarewith supportive policy software is essential, if hoped-for land-use outcomes are to follow.

Historically, urban rail systems, like metros andlight rail, are potential city-shapers. They define thegrowth spines and axes of cities, leading to higherdensity concentrations of industries, offices, andbusinesses along rail-served corridors. They also spursub-centring and decentralization, and are contingenton levels of proactiveness in encouraging new

development and minimizing the growth-restrictingimpacts of onerous regulations. In cities such asToronto, Portland and Munich, for example, the newrail systems have attracted significant shares of newdevelopments to station areas.

Public transport investments in rail-basedservices exert their strongest spatial influence inlarge, congested cities. While most empiricalknowledge is drawn from developed countries, theorysuggests that the city-shaping impacts of new railinvestments in developing countries might bestronger. Global experiences show that a number ofpreconditions are necessary for urban public transportinvestments to spawn sustainable urban formoutcomes (see Box 4).

Accessibility benefits conferred by rail systemsget capitalized into land prices. Higher values of rail-served parcels exert market pressures to intensify land development. Land value appreciation presentsan opportunity to recapture the value created bypublic investments in public transport. The resulting‘win–win’ situation leads to financially viable invest -ments and an intimate connection between railsystems and nearby real estate development thatattracts tenants, new investors and public transportriders. Public transport joint developments (e.g. theleasing of air rights above metro stations to privatedevelopers) are another way to financially capitalizeon the accessibility benefits conferred by public railinvestments.

Conventional wisdom holds that traditional busservices have imperceptible influences on urban formand land-use patterns because, in contrast to manyrail systems, they fail to deliver appreciable access -ibility benefits. An exception, however, is BRT, where


• Proactive planning is necessary if decentralizedgrowth is to take the form of sub-centres;

• Other pro-development measures must accompanypublic transport investments;

• Public transport service incentives and private cardisincentives (‘equalizers’) help in inducing station-area land-use changes);

• Network effects matter.

Box 4 Prerequisites for urban form changes

buses are provided with an exclusive, dedicated lane,which significantly improves the quality of service.Thus, it is not public transport ‘hardware’ – i.e. steel-wheel trains or rubber-tyre buses – that unleashesland-use changes, but rather the quality of service andmore specifically, the comparative travel-time savingsof taking public transport vis-à-vis the private car.Significant land price increases have been recordednear BRT stops in Bogotá, Seoul, Brisbane and LosAngeles.

Motorways generally exert stronger influenceson urban form than public transport lines. However,the impact of new roads varies considerably. In poorer countries, road investments generate neweconomic growth, opening access to new markets andex panding trade sheds. Developed countries, on theother hand, experience impacts that are largelyredistributive, hence shifting growth that mightotherwise occur in some settings to newly servedhighway settings.


Under the right conditions, railways and bus-ways can spur central city redevelopment (Moscow, Russia)

Source: © Martin Roemers / Panos

EQUITABLE ACCESS TO URBAN MOBILITY

C H A P T E R 6Urban mobility systems aim to provide access tobasic goods, services and activities to enable peopleto participate in civic life. In reality, people do nothave equal access to urban opportunities. The unequalaccess per se is not necessarily problematic, however,the distribution of impacts (benefits, disadvantagesand costs) can be considered ‘unfair’, thus becomingan issue of social equity.

Investments in transport infrastructure do littleto alleviate the mobility difficulties of the poor,vulnerable and disadvantaged groups if the servicesprovided are unaffordable or physically inaccessible.This chapter focuses on aspects of urban mobility thatrelate to providing affordable access to opportunities,minimizing social exclusion, and improving the qualityof life for all.

The most critical challenge is the heterogeneityof urban populations and the spatial dispersion ofsocial and economic activities. Meeting the mobility

needs of all requires the provision of adequate publictransport, and appropriate infrastructure for non-motorized transport. Furthermore, improved urbanplanning, new technologies and infrastructure meas -ures are needed where affordability is an importantaspect of equitable access.

AFFORDABLE URBAN MOBILITYTransport must be affordable for the majority of theurban population, and in particular for those who haveno other way of travelling to access basic goods,services and activities. Constrained mobility is animportant element of the social exclusion that definesurban poverty. Improved transport connections canhelp in tackling social exclusion through addressing

• Affordability refers to the extent to which thefinancial cost of journeys puts an individual orhousehold in the position of having to make sacrificesto travel, or to the extent to which they can afford totravel when they want to.

• Availability refers to route possibilities, timings andfrequency.

• Accessibility describes the ease with which allpassengers can use public transport. It also includes

ease of finding out about travel possibilities, i.e. theinformation function.

• Acceptability is another important quality of publictransport, either because of the transport, or thestandards of the traveller. For example, travellers maybe deterred from using public transport due to lack ofpersonal security.

Source: Carruthers et al., 2005.

Box 5 Understanding the parameters of urban transport

barriers posed by the accessibility, availability,acceptability and affordability of the urban mobilitysystem (see Box 5).

The access and mobility of the urban poor isconstrained by city planning, socio-economic charac -teristics, transport facilities and the availability ofservices. The poor are increasingly concentrated onthe periphery of urban areas, and consequently theytravel longer distances and their need for afford abletransport is increased. From Delhi to Shanghai, andBrussels to New York, the provision of economicaland convenient ‘last mile connectivity’ – i.e. from thetrip ends to the point of accessing public transportsystems – remains a major issue of concern. Evidencesuggests that any deficiencies in public transport willhave a greater impact on the urban poor. Hightransport costs force the poor to carefully prioritizetheir mobility needs and expendi ture.

In recent years, ambitious policy responses havebeen introduced by planners and policymakers toaddress the challenges outlined above. Achieving

transport affordability objectives requires actions thatsupport non-motorized transport, reduce the financialcosts of transport services, and increase transportationaffordability through improved land-use accessibility.

Non-motorized transport can be stimulated by a policy package consisting of investment infacilities, improved transportation networks, andawareness campaigns, as well as disincentives for the use of private motorized vehicles. Combiningpublic transport and cycling can provide a high levelof affordable mobility. Most cities in developingcoun tries are high-density, thus suitable for policiespromoting non-motorized transport. Travel demandmanagement has a key role to play in this context.The private sector could be a key partner in supplyside interventions to increase bicycle ownership anduse through the promotion of micro-credit pro -grammes and cycling education. Awareness campaignsand political commitment can bring about a shift inpublic attitudes towards non-motorized transport, aswell as enhanced social inclusion.

Equitable Access to Urban Mobility 37

In developing countries the vast majority of people have limited access to affordable motorized transport (Nairobi, Kenya)

Source: © Julius Mwelu / UN-Habitat


Segregated public transport services may be necessary in many countries to cater for the distinct needs of women (Tokyo, Japan)

Source: © Islemount Images / Alamy

Public transport fares should be set at ratesthat allow commuters to use it. In developing coun -tries, fares are often set above competitive equilib -rium levels. A delicate balance must be struckbetween the consumer’s convenience and willingnessto pay, and the operator’s need to balance its budgets(or to make a profit, in the case of private sectoroperators). Transport subsidy is an important policyoption for ensuring equitable transport access for all.However, poorly targeted subsidies may result in therich deriving a disproportionate benefit compared tothe poor.

Transport affordability can also be increased byimproving land-use accessibility. Accessibilityplanning offers a new way to ensure urban residentsreach the services and facilities they need by walking,cycling and public transport. Integrated land-use andtravel demand management measures enhanceaccessibility and lead to improved affordability. Public

support for suitable low-cost housing near largeemployment centres, or public transport, is a funda -mental aspect of land-use planning. Linking urbanmobility systems and housing policy also makes goodfinancial sense. Together, transportation and housingmake up half or more of household consumptionexpenditure. To the degree that less is spent ontransport, more income is freed up for housingconsumption.

VULNERABLE AND DISADVANTAGED GROUPSAND URBAN MOBILITYVulnerable and disadvantaged groups – women,ethnic minorities, the elderly, the disabled, children,etc. – stand to gain important social benefits fromimproved urban mobility networks, technologies and

facilities, as improved access and mobility reduceisolation, vulnerability and dependency. However,transport networks will need to cater to their particu -lar needs if they are to access the benefits.

Worldwide, societies are gendered, in that menand women often play different roles. There is astrong case for mainstreaming gender concerns in theworking ethos of urban transport organizations. Indeveloped countries, women’s commuting patternsare often different from men’s, particularly if marriedwith children. On average, women are more likelyto be working in part-time and lower-wage jobs thanmen, contributing further to women’s increasedexpenditure in terms of time spent travelling.Whether in urban or peri-urban areas, women tendto make more trips, although over shorter distancesthan men. High costs of public transport can makeaccess to such services particularly prohibitive forwomen, when it comes to reaching places of work,education or basic services. Additionally, significant

levels of sexual harassment of women on urbanpublic transport systems are frequently reportedglobally.

The mobility needs of children and youth areprimarily related to their need to access educationalfacilities, childcare and related services. Accordingly,children’s travel needs can have a significant impacton household travel patterns, due to the largely car-dependent nature of those needs. In developingcountries, the major cause of drop-outs in primaryschools is the distance that children have to walk toreach their schools. Other factors which contributeto irregular school attendance include the risk ofsexual assault.

More than 1 billion people in the world havesome form of disability. People with disabilitiesoften find transport to be limited, unaffordable orinaccessible, frequently citing the lack of adequatetransport as a barrier to accessing health care. Futuretrends show that disability will become an even


Although ‘universal design’ standards address the needs of people with disabilities, it is a comprehensive concept that can benefit allusers

Source: © Jeff Greenberg / Alamy

greater concern, due to ageing populations and thehigher risk of disability in older people, including theglobal increase in chronic health conditions such asdiabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer and mentalhealth disorders. Consequently, many who areaccustomed to driving will have to stop due to age-related disabilities.

A wide range of policy options and initiativesexist, which focus on improving mobility for theurban poor and enhancing accessibility for vulnerableand disadvantaged groups. Cities at various levels ofdevelopment can draw on such experiences forfurther development of sustainable transport systems.The actual design of the policy or practice will haveto be modified to meet the specific circumstances ofeach city. Gender-sensitive design, infrastructureand services are important and need to be main -streamed. Further, strategies that improve pedestriansafety and increase accessibility should also beconsidered. Worldwide, many countries are intro -ducing legislation that requires transport services tobe made more accessible, to conform to internationallaw (see Box 6).

SAFETY AND SECURITY IN URBAN MOBILITY SYSTEMSSafety and security are essential ingredients ofsustainable urban mobility systems. It is importantto guarantee the safety of vehicular traffic andpedestrians. The security of all transport users hasto be ensured to make a transportation systemsustainable. In many countries, national security isan urgent priority, due to the numerous terror attacksagainst urban infrastructure during the last twodecades.

Road traffic accidents are the ninth leadingcause of death worldwide; accounting for 2.2 per cent of all deaths, or 1.2 million deaths per year. Theaverage road traffic fatality rate of developing coun -tries (about 20 per year per 100,000 population) is nearly twice that of developed countries. Thepredominance of vulnerable road user casualties inAsian and African countries can be attributed to theabundance of vehicles and non-motorized transport,including a lack of segregated facilities in the roadnetwork. Poor enforcement of traffic safety regula -tions due to inadequate resources, administra tiveproblems and corruption, exacerbate the situationfurther.

Reducing the risk of traffic accidents in urbanareas requires action on a combination of fronts.Successful policies and interventions to reduce therisk of traffic accidents combine legislation, engin eer -ing, enforcement and education measures. An estim -ated 96 per cent of countries have a national policyprohibiting drinking and driving, to include speedlimits and public information campaigns. Similarly,many countries have made improvements in infra -structure design and vehicle characteristics (e.g. seatbelt use). In developing countries, simple, low-costinterventions such as speed bumps have had asignificant impact on pedestrian road safety. Othereffective interventions include integrated land-use andtransport planning for optimized traffic flow, and thepromotion of public and non-motorized trans -portation.

Globally, security risks and fear of crimewhile engaged in transportation activities haveskyrocketed. Public transport systems are inherentlyvulnerable to terrorist attacks as they concentratelarge numbers of people on a predictable basis, andoften have a minimum of security controls present.


‘To enable persons with disabilities to live independently andparticipate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall takeappropriate measures to ensure persons with disabilitiesaccess, on an equal basis with others, the physical environ-ment, transportation, . . . and other facilities and servicesopen to the public . . . These measures, which shall include

the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriersto accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia: (a) Buildings, roads,transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities,including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces.’Source: www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf, lastaccessed 25 March 2013.

Box 6 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Article 9, paragraph 1)

While the most dramatic attacks have occurred mostlyon major systems in major cities, this does not meanthat local bus services or smaller cities are safe fromattack. Crimes ostensibly unrelated to the use ofpublic transport – such as being robbed or killed whilewaiting at a bus stop – discourage many people fromusing public transport. In many countries widespreadsexual harassment on and around public transportfacilities, inadequate street lighting and poor designof public transport, are also deterrents.

Since the 1980s, transport planners have recog -nized the importance of personal security for trans portation users, especially women. Similarly,many European cities are limiting through-traffic onstreets to protect children, the elderly, and disabled

people through the judicious use of speed bumps and wind ing thoroughfares. The integration of safetyconcerns within transportation systems such asenvironmental design is also increasingly evident.Environmental design plays an important role inreducing crime in public transport, which includesstrategic policing, strict maintenance procedures,and ‘zero tolerance’ policies in enforcing rules andregulations. The emergence of low-cost open-sourcemapping tools, widespread cellular network cover-age, declining costs of mobile phone hardware, andincreasing internet use by public agencies haveresulted in unprecedented opportunities to supporttransport planning and management in developingcountries.


Traffic accidents are one of the leading causes of deaths in cities (Lebanon)

Source: © JORDI CAMÍ / Alamy

The environmental consequences of increased motor -ization are cause for major concern – both locally andglobally – as the transport sector is one of the majorcontributors to greenhouse gas emis sions, the major cause of climate change. Urban mobility willalways use resources and generate externalities, butits impact on the urban environment can be sub -stantially reduced, so that it remains within acceptablelimits and makes a strong contribution to otheraspects of sustainability, including inter generationalconcerns. Urban density reduces the overall spatialfootprint of development and allows for greaterpreservation of natural areas.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES IN URBANMOBILITY SYSTEMSEnvironmental concerns have, over the last fewdecades, become central to urban mobility planning.Yet, in practice, developmental objectives seem totake priority over environmental concerns. There isan urgent need to find the means by which bothdevelopmental and environmental concerns can beaddressed at the same time, in mutually supportingways.

Motorized urban transport relies almost entirely(95 per cent) on oil-based products for its energysupply, primarily in the form of petrol and diesel. Theshift in urban transport technology towardsmotorization has led to a significant increase in the

global consumption of such oil-based products. Thetransport sector accounts for about 22 per cent ofglobal energy use. The bulk of this is accounted forby passenger transport, while the rest is consumedby freight transport.

The dependence on an oil-based energysupply means that there has been a direct corres -pondence between the amount of energy used in thetransport sector and the emissions of carbon dioxide(CO2), the main transport-related greenhouse gas.Given the considerable growth in urban travel demandglobally, mitigation technologies and prac tices areurgently required to achieve a significant globalreduction in carbon-based energy use for urbantransport. In the longer term, and irrespective of thewider environmental impacts, the transport sectorneeds to diversify its sources of energy and to de-carbonize the sources of fuel used.

Cities are more efficient in their use of energyfor transport than less densely populated locations,as more efficient public transport can replace the needto use private cars, and because distances are shorter.There is thus a significant potential to reduce energyuse (and thus greenhouse gas emissions) byencouraging more people to use public transport.

Globally, the CO2 emissions from the trans -port sector have increased by 85 per cent from 1973to 2007. However, the CO2 emissions fromtransportation are much lower in developing than indeveloped countries. The emissions in most of Asiaand Africa, for example, are about a third or a quarterof the global average, with the exception of the

URBAN MOBILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

C H A P T E R 7

Urban Mobility and the Environment 438000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

Ann

ual k

g p

er c

apita

of

CO

2

Atla

nta

Hou

ston

San

Fra

ncis

coD

enve

rS

an D

iego

Los

Ang

eles

Pho

enix

Was

hing

ton

Chi

cago

New

Yor

kC

alga

ryTo

ront

oM

elb

ourn

eP

erth

Bris

ban

eVa

ncou

ver

Syd

ney

Ott

owa

Mon

trea

lR

iyad

hB

russ

els

Wel

lingt

onFr

ankf

urt

Gen

eva

Rom

eH

amb

urg

Mun

ich

Stu

ttga

rtO

slo

Sto

ckho

lmB

angk

okN

ante

sM

arse

ille

Ruh

rG

lasg

owLy

onZ

uric

hV

ienn

aD

usse

ldor

fC

open

hage

nLo

ndon

New

cast

leM

adrid

Par

isB

erlin

Gra

zB

erne

Mila

nB

olog

naTe

l Avi

vA

mst

erd

amJo

hann

esb

urg

Ath

ens

Man

ches

ter

Sap

por

oTo

kyo

Hel

sink

iS

inga

por

eO

saka

Kua

la L

ump

urP

ragu

eS

ao P

aulo

Seo

ulTa

ipei

Bud

apes

tC

uriti

ba

Bar

celo

naC

ape

Tow

nH

arar

eB

ogot

aC

raco

wH

ong

Kon

gTe

hran

Tuni

sJa

kart

aM

anila

Bei

jing

Dak

arG

uang

zhou

Cai

roC

henn

aiS

hang

hai

Mum

bai

Ho

Chi

Min

h C

ity

Public

Private

Figure 8

Per capita emissions of CO2 from passenger transport in 84 cities (1995)

Source: Kenworthy, 2003, p. 18.

Middle East, where transportation emissions percapita are similar to those in Europe.

Road freight accounts for about 25 per cent ofglobal transport-related CO2 emissions, whileemissions from rail transport are insignificant. A totalof 52 per cent of CO2 emissions are being producedfrom passenger road transport. Worldwide, moreenergy (and CO2 emissions) per capita is used inprivate than in public transport; in Africa the ratio isthree to one, while it is fifty to one in the US. Figure8 shows variations in CO2 emissions from passengertransport across cities in various parts of the world.In most cities, the emissions from public transportare insignificant compared to those from privatemotorized transport.

Nearly one-half of the world’s cities are locatedon the coast or along major rivers. These locationshave in the past been subject to occasional flooding,but these risks have increased as a result of frequentstorm surges and high winds, accentuated by globalwarming and sea level rise. Transport is central tothe functioning of cities, and therefore the immediateneed for cities to take action to protect the existingtransport infrastructure from the impacts of climatechange is critical.

The increased motorization of urban transportis also causing serious challenges to human health:

• Air and noise pollution: Trucks and other freight carriers emit disproportionate amounts ofpollutants in cities. Prolonged exposure to noisecan lead to anxiety, depression and insomnia.

• Human health and physical activity: There is

Changwon is working towards becoming Korea’s leading‘eco-rich city’, by improving the quality of life throughsustainable mobility and non-motorized transportation.As a part of this effort, the ‘Nubija’ bicycle sharingsystem was introduced on 22 October 2008, with 20parking stations (where bikes can be checked out andreturned) and 430 bicycles. By 2011, there were 163parking stations (with 3,300 bicycles). At that time,membership of the scheme had reached 76,579, whoride an average of 4,396 kilometres per day. In 2012, thenumber of parking stations had reached 230.

Box 7 A successful bicycle sharing system: Changwon, Republic of Korea


growing evidence of the links between physicalinactivity and obesity, and their impacts on therisk of diabetes, heart disease, colon cancer,strokes and breast cancer.

• Community severance, open spaces andmental health: Community severance dividesand fragments communities, forming a barrier sothat people cannot cross the road or rail track.Research indicates that job satisfaction and com -mitment declines with increased road commutingdistance (but not with public transit use), and thatperceived traffic stress is associated with bothlower general health status and depression.

REDUCING THE NUMBER OF MOTORIZED TRIPSThere are many opportunities to reduce the need for motorized travel by walking or cycling. Moreimaginative innovations are the cycle hire schemesthat are now a feature of many cities (see Box 7),

where old technology (the bicycle) has been matchedup with the new technology (smartcards), so thatbikes can be used on demand, either free for an initialperiod or for a reasonable charge.

The most effective way of reducing the numberof trips (at least in theory) is that a specific trip is nolonger made, as it has been replaced by a non-travelactivity or substituted by technology, for exampleinternet shopping, teleworking and teleconferenc-ing.

REDUCING TRAVEL DISTANCES IN CITIESUrban planning has a major role to play in organizingspatial activities in cities so that they are in closeproximity to their users. If travel distances arereduced then accessibility is improved as activitiescan be undertaken with less travel. Further, if traveldistances are short, then it becomes more attractiveto walk or cycle – particularly if space is allocated for

Telecommuting (i.e. working from home) reduces the need for physical travel

Source: © Blend Images / Alamy


exclusive rights of way – and use public transport,thus reducing energy use and the environmentalimpacts of transport. The arguments for high urbandensities are strong on both transport and land take,hence cities should be encouraged to build upwards(higher buildings) and not outwards (suburbansprawl).

CHANGING THE MODAL SPLITTransport policy has often been strongly orientatedtowards maintaining and increasing levels of publictransport use. However, success has been limited dueto increases in incomes and growing urban popula -tions. There are three basic groups of strategies thatcan be used to encourage modal shift to more energy-efficient forms of transport, namely:

1 Regulatory measures can place limitations on thenumbers of vehicles on the road at any given time

or day. Limitations can also be placed on thenumber of new vehicles that can be registered inthe city.

2 Pricing measures include electronic road pricing,congestion charging or cordon pricing and parkingpricing to reflect the value of the space used.

3 Investments in public transport and publictransport infrastructure are central to ensurethat priority is given to this transport mode, whichallows the greatest number of people to be carriedmost efficiently.

TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION AND VEHICLE EFFICIENCYThere are technological and other policy responsesrelated to increasing the efficiency of motor-ized vehicles and the use of the best available

Non-motorized transport modes play an important role in many cities (Old Delhi, India)

Source: © Robin Laurance / Alamy

technology. This implies that the use of carbon-based fuels should be substantially reduced and cleaner low-carbon fuels should replace them for all formsof motorized transport. Efficiency gains must be setagainst the growth in traffic, as this often outweighsthose gains. Rapid urbanization in many developingcountries thus presents an opportunity to invest inthe low-carbon city transport system of the future(‘leap frogging’).

The scale of any emission reduction is dependenton a set of factors such as the efficiency and ageof the vehicle stock, the distance driven by eachvehicle, and the tendency to buy larger and heaviervehicles. The introduction of new technologies doesnot, however, lead to immediate cuts in emissions.The average age of vehicles in developed countriesis lower than in developing countries, where the aver -age age of vehicles can be more than 15 years, withexceptions like Brazil, India and China, which havetheir own car manufacturing industry.

The emission of pollutants from motorizedvehicles is related to three main factors: The qualityof the fuel, the fuel efficiency of the vehicle stock,and the capture of pollutants before they escape fromthe vehicle. Many governments are now setting morechallenging mandatory targets for fuel efficiencyin new vehicles, and this single action will sub stan -tially reduce CO2 and other emissions from thetransport sector. Despite the clear intentions toreduce key emissions from vehicles, in practice it willtake 10–15 years to work its way through the entirevehicle stock in developed countries. In developingcountries, with considerably older vehicle stocks, itwill take even longer.

While searching for alternative fuels, it isimportant to recognize that both petrol and dieselhave very high energy densities, thus, alternativesshould have a high energy output and must be pro -duced cleanly and cheaply, and in sufficient quantities.

The range of technological solutions that can be used to address the issues of improved vehicleefficiencies and reduced levels of CO2 emissions are extensive. Underlying all strategies, however, isthe importance of vehicle occupancy (freight andpassenger), which is illustrated by the efficiencyfigures. Fully laden vehicles (public and private,freight and passenger) are far more efficient thanempty ones.

THE COMPOSITE SOLUTIONMost cases of successful implementation involve apackage of policy measures. Such ‘packages’ aremore likely to gain public acceptance and promoteoverall welfare gains to society. The packaging processrequires a deep and holistic appreciation of policysubsystems, together with a structured approach, ifits benefits are to be genuinely realized.

In order to achieve the European Union targetof zero carbon emissions from transport in cities by2050, some communities have started movingtowards the ‘car-free city’. One such community isVauban, Germany, which was constructed on a scalethat facilitates movement by local public transport,walking and cycling (see Box 8). Vauban offers oneexample of how many of the different elementsoutlined in this chapter can be brought together into


Electric or hybrid cars are a feasible solution to reduce thecarbon footprint of private motorized transport

Source: © guynamedjames / Shutterstock

a coherent set of proposals. Based on this experienceit seems that urban residents can live in a car-freeenvironment, provided that the right transport linksare established, there are local facilities and services,and there are sufficient reasons for not owning a car(e.g. limited and costly parking).

FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR ENVIRONMENTALLYSUSTAINABLE URBANMOBILITY SYSTEMSThere are global financial options that are directlyrelated to environmental sustainability. So far, the

mechanisms devised to address such funding have notbeen effectively used in cities or in the transportsector. Out of the 6,660 ‘clean developmentmechanism’ projects registered by 1 April 2013, onlytwenty-eight were related to transport. The cleandevelopment mechanism is one of the flexiblemechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol.

There are also considerable overlaps betweenmany general development programmes – fundedthrough official development assistance – and globalpublic goods programmes, including climate changemitigation strategies, such as public sector invest -ments in clean transportation.


Vauban is a small community of 5,500 inhabitants and 600jobs, 4 kilometres south of the town centre of Freiburg. Itwas started in 1998 as ‘a sustainable model district’ on thesite of a former military base. Although the Vaubancommunity itself is small, it is mixed, with considerablelevels of involvement of the local people, who help todecide priorities and alternatives (the Forum Vauban). Theguiding mobility principle has been to try to reduce car use,giving residents the flexibility to use a car where necessary.This is matched by high quality public transport, walking andcycling facilities.

Within Vauban, movement is mainly by foot andbicycle, and there is a tram link to Freiburg (2006). Cyclingis the main mode of transport for most trips and activities,including commuting and shopping. The town is laid outlinearly along the tracks, so that all homes are within easywalking distance of a tram stop. The speed limit on thedistrict’s main road is 30 kilometres per hour, while in theresidential area, cars should not drive faster than ‘walking

speed’ (5 kilometres per hour). About 70 per cent of thehouseholds have chosen to live without a private car(2009), and the level of car ownership (and use) hascontinued to fall.

The transport network in Vauban adopts a complexcombination grid, with three types of streets: collectorroads, local streets and pedestrian/bicycle paths. Most localstreets are crescents and culs-de-sac. While they arediscontinuous for cars, they connect to a network ofpedestrian and bike paths which permeate the entireneighbourhood.

Most of Vauban’s residential streets lack parkingspaces. Vehicles are allowed to drive in these streets (atwalking pace) to pick up and deliver, but are not allowed topark; enforcement is based on social consensus. Each year,households are required to sign a declaration indicatingwhether they own a car. If they do, they must buy a spacein one of the multi-storey car parks on the periphery (at anannual cost of €18,000 in 2008).

Box 8 Car-free living: Vauban, Germany

In economic terms, the various modes of urbanmobility are both complementary and competitive.They are complementary because residents typicallyavail themselves of more than one travel mode as theygo about the daily activities of urban life. Simultan -eously, these modal alternatives often compete forpassengers. If sustainable transport systems are toevolve out of such complex systems, it is going torequire an understanding of the incentives anddisincentives faced by buyers and sellers of transportservices.

The ways that urban transport options emergeand evolve depend heavily upon the costs of differ-ent transport options and the ways in which thesecosts are financed: either directly in fares, indirectlythrough taxes and fees or absorbed as pollution, cli -mate change, congestion, road traffic deaths andinjuries, or other social costs. Thus, this chapterreviews the economics and financing of urban mobilityin light of its impacts on the ways the choices aremade to explicitly pay for, or implicitly absorb, thecosts. Finance systems can encourage (or discourage)the alignment of economic, environmental and socialgoals. There is thus a need to move away from aneconomics of mobility towards an economics ofaccess.

THE ECONOMIC ANDFINANCIAL CHALLENGES OF URBAN MOBILITYThe global dominance of the private car as thepreferred means of urban transport is settingurbanization on a collision course with pressingequity and environmental concerns. Data on therelationship between rising income levels and risingrates of car ownership are strongly positive: as incomerises, car ownership increases. Although the relation -ship between income levels and car ownership isrelatively weak in countries with high incomes, it is strong among low-income countries. As the majorityof the world’s population live in low-income coun-tries, an overall increase in income in these countriescould have a significant impact on car ownership. The central challenge is to ensure that financing forpublic and non-motorized transport infrastructure and service delivery is at least comparable to effortsfor accommodating the car. To do less is to virtuallyensure that public transport remains an inferiorchoice.

Despite its relatively low cost, infrastructure fornon-motorized transport (pedestrian bridges, paths,sidewalks and crossings) is sorely lacking in manyurban areas, making it an unsafe and often inconven -ient mode of travel. Non-motorized transport is oftencompletely ignored or allocated an insufficient budget– particularly in developing countries – because it isnot ‘revenue-generating’; thus, private investors and

THE ECONOMICS AND FINANCINGOF URBAN MOBILITY

C H A P T E R 8

Economics and Financing 49

international lending agencies are not keen to providefinance, while the cost is, in many cases, beyond citycapabilities.

Public transport can provide excellent accesswithin urban areas when it is affordable to the user,frequent, predictable, safe and integrated within acomprehensive network. However, it often entailshigh capital and operating costs compared with privatecars. To make a comparison between the real cost ofpublic vs. private motorized transport, it is essentialthat the full cost include social costs, local pollutionand global greenhouse gas emissions as well as theeconomic cost of congestion.

While capital costs for rail-based public trans-port range widely, they are consistently higher thanfor other modes. It has been estimated that the total per kilometre capital cost for metros generallyranges between US$50 million and US$150 million (2002 US$ values). BRT capital costs (i.e. stations and

dedicated lanes) are considerably lower and thesystems are built faster than rail. However, BRT doesgenerally entail higher maintenance and operationcosts than rail.

Public transport is primarily financed throughfares, subsidies, and value-capture arrangements.Fares are perhaps the most contested component ofpublic transport financing (see Box 9). Internationalaid and/or broader-based subsidies must be soughtto support public transport systems. Strong regulatoryand governing institutions are necessary to collect and distribute funds for public transport at a largescale.

Informal motorized transport can operatemuch like public transport from the user’s perspec -tive, but is usually managed by private, for-profitcompanies or individuals. Each informal transportsystem may have its own fare structure which is notintegrated with the rest of the public transport

A multi-modal regional transport system facilitates an easy distribution of costs and revenues across modes (London, UK)

Source: © Peter Stroh / Alamy

system. Uncompensated social costs subsidize thefinancial viability for informal sector transportproviders.

Private motorized transport is often the most expensive mode for the traveller. There is achoke point of congestion when each private vehiclereduces space and diminishes the quality and speedof the trip for all other vehicles. Depending on systemdesign, private vehicles can also interfere with theoperation of public transportation.

ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE TRANSPORT SECTORUrban transportation is a vital urban public serviceand an integral input into the economic life of its city-region. While the overall size of the transport sectorvaries from economy to economy, it tends to accountfor a small but significant proportion of the grossdomestic product – between 3 and 8 per cent in thecountries of Asia and the Pacific. The demand fortransport is what economists call a derived demand– a demand generated in pursuit of another goal.Urban transport is also a major source of employ-ment.

In most cities of Sub-Saharan Africa, employmentin the informal urban transport industry is a mainstayof the local urban economy. In Kenya, some 40,000matatus (mini-vans) provide 80,000 direct and 80,000indirect jobs, mostly in urban areas. The transportsector also often creates higher overall levels ofincome. Worldwide, it has been estimated that every

US$1 of value created by public transport is linkedto the further value creation of US$4.

FROM ECONOMICS OF MOBILITY TOWARDSECONOMICS OF ACCESSOne of the most powerful justifications for thedisproportionate funding of private motorizedtransport is that it saves time. If the value of thebenefits (i.e. the time savings) exceeds the cost ofthe project, it is deemed worthwhile. It is from thisinsight that modern cost–benefit analysis for transportdecision-making evolved. It is, however, important torethink this approach, to evaluate ‘the value of access’as distinct from the hypothesized benefit of ‘timesaved’ when considering transport investments.

To the extent that transport improves the abilityof an urban area to maximize the agglomerativebenefits of access – i.e. the economies of marketdensity and supplier density – it adds significantvalue to the local economy. A working definition ofthe benefits of agglomeration would be the increasein individual per worker productivity that resultsfrom improved access.

An economic analysis of sustainable urbanmobility must consider the complex nature of mobilityas both a private and public economic good. Theworking formulation for an economics of sustainableurban mobility is one in which the planning and policytarget is maximum access and minimal mobility.Mobility serves as the means to access these goods.


Generally, fare-box recovery is adequate to support thepublic transport system only in places where density of useis high, public transport runs on exclusive rights of way andwhere affluent users prefer public transport to private cars.Two types of situation fit this scenario:

• Certain Asian cities; such as Hong Kong, Singapore,Tokyo, Osaka and Taipei. The fare box recovery ratioin Hong Kong in 2007 was 149 per cent.

• High-speed rail lines that connect major airports to citycentres, such as the Heathrow Express in London, theArlanda Express in Stockholm, the Brussels Airport

train, the Schipol–Amsterdam train and the ShanghaiMaglev.

For European cities, the modal fare box recovery ratios arein the range of 30–50 per cent. The fare box recoveryratios in North American cities with high density and strongfixed rail systems are comparable to those in Europe.However, in the lower density North American cities therates go down to as little as 9 per cent. In Burkina Faso, thepublic–private bus system, SOTRACO, covers 59 per centof operating costs from fare revenues.

Box 9 Public transport cost recovery from fares

Increasingly, car users in most countries do not pay a high enough price to cover the full cost to society of this travel mode. This implies that thesociety at large is in effect subsidizing privatemotorized transport (through the costs of addressingeconomic, social and environmental externalities).Policy solutions to correct this inefficiency call for‘getting prices right’. In order to develop urban publictransport systems that are of sufficient quality and quantity, and that also reduce environmental andsocial equity problems, policymakers must confrontthe reality that user charges will never be sufficient.

THE PERENNIAL FINANCIAL PROBLEM: COSTS EXCEEDREVENUESAs noted in Box 8.1, there are only a handful ofinstances where fares represent both full cost

recovery and sufficient profit to permit a privatemarket to sustainably meet the needs of passengertravel. Policymakers have attempted to ‘solve’ the cashflow problem through fare increases and competitivetendering. These solutions typically fall short, and thestarting point for confronting the financial challengeis to recognize that if urban public transport is togenerate its valuable public goods benefits (i.e.to promote access), revenue sources beyond thefare box are needed.

Travellers in developing countries pay hightransport prices relative to their income; the amountpaid is insufficient, relative to the revenue sumsrequired at full cost recovery. Poor quality trans port -ation entails high costs that are often not distributedequally across the city or within households. Theseincome constraints limit the amount of revenue thatusers can contribute to the costs of maintaining theurban transport system. Attempts to resolve revenueshortfalls by increasing the costs of populations thatare already paying a fare that severely taxes their


Hong Kong, China, has one of the world’s few self-financing public transport systems, thanks to efficient use of value capture

Source: © CoverSpot Photography / Alamy

ability to pay is clearly an extremely inequitableapproach, and is thus not likely to succeed.

Furthermore, the value of urban transport isdirectly related to its quality as an integrated system,distinct from a collection of independent modaloptions and specific routes. The financial danger isthat in a quest for saving money, specific routes areat times valued on an individual basis and not as partof a system. The public goods value of accessderives from the existence of entire urbantransport systems.

EXPANDING THE FINANCIAL OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC ANDNON-MOTORIZEDTRANSPORTIn what direction should the public sector proceedin order to expand financial support for urban public

and non-motorized transport beyond user-generatedrevenues? This section outlines the possibleapproaches.

Typically, governments meet the funding gap forurban transport via allocations from general taxreceipts, the so called general revenue model. Tothe extent that governments treat public transportas just one among many public services such aspolice protection and education, this arrangement canwork well. One of the weaknesses of this financialsource is its political vulnerability (i.e. changingpolitical climates).

There are also a number of other allocationsfrom public funds to urban transport (which are ineffect cross-subsidies to public and non-motorizedtransport), including, inter alia: various forms of roadpricing, parking fees, advertising, sales taxes, taxeson fuels and vehicle ownership, employer contribu -tions and grants from international funding agencies.However, the allocation of such public funding isfrequently exposed to political considerations, and


Park and ride schemes, combined with road pricing, can encourage a modal shift towards public transport

Source: © Kevin Britland / Alamy

may get diverted to other purposes, particularlyduring periods of economic austerity or changes inleadership.

Since direct public funding is politically vulner -able, it is preferable to directly link publicly spon-sored forms of financial support to the benefits urban mobility bestows upon indirect beneficiaries.It is within that context that location-based taxes andassess ments to support transport services havebecome popularly labelled as value capture systems.Experiences from Hong Kong and Bogotá show theimportance of creating an agency that is capable of bridging the land use and transport divide. Tax-increment financing also works according to thesame principle: when a site’s value increases due tothe implementation of new transport infrastructure,the government can anticipate an additional incre -ment in real estate taxes, and can borrow against thisanticipated tax revenue to finance imple mentation ofthe transport infrastructure. Value capture approacheswork best in cities where there is initially low percapita car use and where the population is growing.

A wide range of other public–private partner -ship models have been used to finance urbantransport systems. Such partnerships run across acontinuum of contractual arrangements ranging from

traditional forms of government procurement to totalprivate ownership of publicly used infrastructure. Onepowerful motivation for public partners to engage insuch partnerships is to pass the risks of constructionand maintenance off to the private party. However,as the investment involves vital elements of publicinfrastructure, the public partner can never walkaway. Consequently, and regardless of contractualarrangements, the risk often remains with the publicsector, which is often forced to buy out the privatepartner, at great cost to the public treasury.

In practice, finance for most urban transportsystems is typically a combination of sources thatresemble value capture in some aspects and generalrevenue funding approaches in others. The specificfinancial structure of any particular system willdepend greatly on the historic context in which itoperates, including the norms and values.

City experiences demonstrate the importance of inter-governmental cooperation and the need fora clear local public authority over the operation ofpublic transport systems. Overall, there is need toensure that – as a general rule of thumb – operatingcosts are tied to fares. However, capital costs needa broader source of revenues – a source that relatesto the broader access values that the system creates.


The challenges of urban mobility systems can onlybe addressed if they are seen as political challenges;requiring political consultation, decision and imple -mentation, as opposed to seeing them as purely tech -nical challenges requiring the ‘right’ technicalsolutions. Therefore, urban governance and relatedinstitutional and regulatory frameworks are at theheart of developing sustainable urban mobilitysystems and are critical to how well (and how fast)urban transport infrastructure and services areplanned, appraised, delivered and operated.

No matter how good the policy recom menda -tions, their implementation is dependent upon howfit-for-purpose these institutional and governanceframeworks are to direct, manage, resource anddeliver them. In many cities, formal institutionswhich affect the transport sector frequently operatein a less than desirable manner, particularly in devel -oping countries.

UNDERSTANDING INSTITUTIONAL ANDGOVERNANCEFRAMEWORKS FOR URBANMOBILITYThe interaction of the institutional structure andagency actors is characterized by both formal

dimensions (i.e. rules and laws) and informal dimen -sions (i.e. customs and traditions), which impactrelations between different branches of government.Even in the well-ordered cities of many developedcountries, the informal sector and non-governmentalorganizations play an increasingly important role infacilitating and encouraging sustainable urbanmobility.

The practice of policymaking and planning forurban mobility generally rests with institutions at the level of an urban area. However, as this may not coincide with the administrative boundary of thedominant city, organizations at a national (and some -times regional/provincial) government level also setframeworks that can significantly influence policiesthat are (and are not) adopted. This is particularly thecase with respect to land use, emissions, climatechange, safety and finance. Coordination between thetwo levels of government is often not easy andfrequently unequal.

CONDITIONS AND TRENDSThe policy and planning challenges of urban mobil-ity in developing countries and in countries witheconomies in transition differ significantly from those found in urban areas of developed countries.Generally, the resources (human, technical andfinancial) and institutional frameworks at the disposalof policymakers and planners in such cities are less

INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNANCEFOR URBAN MOBILITY

C H A P T E R 9

Institutions and Governance 55

well developed. The report focuses on selectedregional conditions and trends of institutional devel -opments and governance, and their underlyinginfluences.

In most of Africa poor coordination between thenumerous institutions in urban transport prevails. Thishas led to problems in developing unified and inte -grated urban mobility policies. Generally, too manyministries are involved in urban transport issues,combined with widespread underfunding and absenceof decentralization in the transport sector.

The institutional and governance frameworks inthe field of urban land-use and transport in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean are strongly influencedby developed countries (particularly North America).The major new institutional initiatives in the regionrelate to efforts to formalize and improve publictransport services through the introduction of newBRT systems and metro extensions.

The institutional and governance structures for urban transport in Western Asia are as diverse

as the different governance systems found there.Notwithstanding, a decentralized model of urbantrans port governance appears to be emerging through -out the region, as a result of recent reforms relatedto rapid urbanization. Many oil-rich countries havedeveloped urban transportation systems similar tothose in developed countries. This has been accom -panied by the establishment of some well-resourced,sophisticated new institutional and governmentframeworks for urban mobility. In contrast, Yemen,which has inadequately developed institutions forurban mobility, is more akin to those of the poorerparts of South Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa.

The institutional frameworks for urban trans-port and land-use development in the cities of SouthAsia generally exhibit a strong multi-tier set ofnational, regional and local government, plus quasi-governmental institutions, accompanied by a sig ni -ficant growth of private sector transport operators andinvestors (see Box 10). The lateral links between theinstitu tions – in functional and geographical terms –

Consultations with all stakeholders are an essential component of the realization of effective urban mobility systems

Source: © Alfredo Caliz / Panos


are typically poor compared to their vertical insti -tutional links. However, several Indian cities have setup unified metropolitan traffic and transportauthorities.

South-Eastern Asia presents a mixed picturein terms of institutional development and governancefor urban transport. This is due to the different formsand levels of governments that prevail, differentcolonial histories, and subsequent evolution of theirpolitical processes. It is common however, that manyof the responsibilities related to urban movement in the region are entrusted to a range of differentnational ministries.

In Eastern Asia, the influence of the stronginstitutional and governance frameworks for urbanmobility in Hong Kong and Singapore has been par -ticularly noticeable in mainland China. Accord ingly,strong political support for key urban trans portationprojects has helped achieve some aspects of long-termpolicymaking and planning in China. However, insome instances, tensions exist between central andlocal interests, as well as between public and privatesector interests. Occasionally, these have preventedthe emergence of an integrated institu tional approachto land-use and transport develop ment.

CHALLENGES, UNDERLYING INFLUENCES AND RELATEDPOLICY RESPONSESThe report organizes the main challenges andunderlying influences related to urban transportinstitutions and governance in four main categories,

as outlined below. The main report presents a selec -tion of innovative and successful institutional andgovernance interventions to address most of thesechallenges.

Adaptation challenges

There is a slow-growing acceptance among govern -ments (and stakeholders) of the need to changeinstitu tions and governance, if sustainable mobilitygoals are to be delivered. The increased globaliza-tion and politicization of the environmental debatebrings challenges that can have major local mani -festations. Negative manifestations generate tensions,which have influenced the thinking of many urbanmobility stakeholders, as well as those engaged inurban land-use policy and planning. Due to the resist -ance to change within many institutions, addressingthese chal lenges typically requires strong politicalleadership.

There is increasing recognition that the inte gra -tion of land-use and transport planning is neces saryto ensure the efficiency of urban mobility systems.

Administrative and governance challenges

During the last two decades, democratization, privat -ization and decentralization have been the three mainchallenges to the institutional changes occurring inEastern Europe. For example, complications haveoccurred when rail- and road-based transport servicesextend well beyond city boundaries into their hinter -land as inter-city carriers for passengers and goods.

• Under-resourced institutions, lacking in overallcapacity to plan, execute, maintain and deliver affordableand sustainable urban transport.

• Fragmented policy formulation and imple-mentation, with lack of co-operation among multipleministries and transport agencies.

• Lack of finances for transport infrastructure andpublic transport services; resulting in extensive insti-tutional and governmental support, concessions andsubsidies.

• Insufficient financial procedures and accounting/audit systems.

• Bureaucratic procedural constraints that impedethe delivery of urban transport infrastructure andservices.

• Inadequate legal and enforcement frameworksand capacities needed for urban transport and land-usedevelopments.

• Absence of comprehensive information systems,disclosures and public participation, leading tocorruptive practices.

Box 10 Typical challenges of urban transport institutions in South Asia

Institutions and Governance 57Changes in organizational arrangements of

agencies are frequently made to address urbanmobility challenges, particularly when a newadministration comes to power, either at the nationalor municipal level. These changes, however, have too often acquired a reputation for doing little morethan ‘moving the boxes around’ on an organizationalchart, and renaming them.

Of all challenges confronted by efforts topromote integrated urban land-use and mobilityplanning, perhaps the most corrosive is a bias against integrated planning and management.

Mobility policy, plan-making,management and regulatory challenges

The mainstreaming of the mobility needs of thesocially and economically disadvantaged is a majorchallenge, and includes gender concerns, as well as theneeds of the disabled, the elderly, children and youth.The challenges relate to their dependence on non-motorized movement, their restricted access to motor-ized public and private transport, their vulnerability to traffic accidents, and other safety and securityconcerns.

The issue of how best to plan, manage, operateand regulate urban public transport is a major inter -national challenge, especially where non-nationalized

models of public transport governance exist. Somestakeholders advocate that these enterprises mustover time be transformed into self-sustaining busi -nesses operating on commercial lines. Other stake -holders, however, do not consider it desirable (orinevitable) that public transport should always becommercially operated, and look to a more welfare-orientated approach instead.

Freight movement is critical to the economies of all cities. There is thus an ongoing call for increased private investments to address the needs of freight movement, in terms of infrastructure and operations. Although globally significant, suchinvestment is par ticularly important for cities withmajor ports and/or airline hubs in developingcountries, and countries with economies in transi-tion, where globalization has opened up many newopportunities. In order to address such challenges, the City of Paris has em ployed an explicit transportpolicy for freight since the early 2000s, and haspromoted a charter for freight movement (see Box 11).

Challenges of multi-modal integration areexceedingly important with respect to provision ofefficient public transport and freight movement. Acommon challenge for urban institutions is theintegration of the planning, management andoperation of railways with road-based public transportservices and other traffic.

In 2002, a consultation brought together the deputy mayorand the various freight transport stakeholders – as well asrail operators, energy providers and other public agencies –with a view to informing each other of their respectivechallenges and priorities. In 2006, as a result of theseconsultations, a Freight Charter was signed by all parties.While not a legally binding document, it identifiedcommitments made. The most salient of the conclusions ofthis charter were that it:

• Declared that consultation helped defuse conflictsbefore they break out, between parties that (previously)usually never met.

• Introduced enforcement of truck access and deliveryregulations.

• Highlighted the land scarcity for logistics activities,especially in the inner suburbs.

• Suggested that experimenting with new forms of citylogistics organizations is an effective way of spreadingnew ideas.

• Concluded that the relevant jurisdiction for policies isregional rather than local, given that freight flowstraverse all local boundaries.

Box 11 The Freight Charter, Paris, France

Inter-agency collaboration among the organ -izations responsible for the planning, managementand operation of various urban modes of transport –and the city planning organizations responsible forland developments – is also essential. Finally, thereis a clear need to mainstream environmental concernsin institutional and governance frameworks for urbanmobility.

Resourcing and capacity-buildingchallenges

Perhaps the most pervasive challenge for urban trans -port institutions globally, is the lack of sustainedfunding for transportation infrastructure and services– not least for the institutional infrastructure.Combined with a poor understanding of urban eco -nomics and the complex interplay between infra -

structure investment, land-use planning and the value that the ‘public good’ of efficient mobility canprovide, these challenges can pose ‘wicked problems’,i.e. problems that are difficult (or impossible) toresolve on account of their incomplete, contradictoryand changing features.

The development of information and com mun -ications technologies enhances the performance ofurban transportation systems. These tools, however,are often poorly understood and/or present numeroustechnological and funding challenges (especiallyinitially) to many conventional civic institutions,particularly in developing countries.

Institutional capacity-building and training ofstaff in the urban transport sector is critical, as it seeks to address local issues, and enhances globalinformation and communications technologies thatfacilitate knowledge-sharing and lesson-learning.


Strong political leadership is a critical element for successful urban transport reforms (Enrique Peñalosa, Bogotá, Colombia)

Source: © Holcim Foundation

Global trends, such as rapid urbanization and motor -ization, pose tremendous challenges to urban mobil-ity and accessibility. Yet, the changing context withinwhich these are occurring, and the experience thisis generating, present new opportunities for advancinginnovative policies and programmes for sustainabledevelopment. The crux of this chapter is an elucida -tion of the concrete ramifications pertaining to theshift from focusing on improving the efficiency ofurban transportation to enhancing accessibility in thecity as a whole.

It is appropriate, first, to revisit some of the dys -functional trends that were highlighted in the prelim -inary chapters and which necessitate the paradigmaticshift reiterated throughout this report. Indeed, themost prominent trend emerging from Chapters 2–4is the increasing difficulty in accessing places,opportunities and services worldwide. Owing tourban sprawl, distances between functional destina -tions have become longer, widespread congestion hasincreased travel time, and high capital and operatingexpenses have led to increasing costs of accessibility.Consequently, a number of social groups are struc -turally discouraged from accessing many parts of thecities where they live, and are therefore deprived ofthe full benefits offered by urbanization. Furthermore,poor accessibility has reduced the efficiency andfunctionality of many cities.

Another trend highlighted in this report is thesteady increase in the share of private motorizedtransport, including the extremely high motorizationrates in developing countries. Apart from the inherent

inequity associated with private motorized transport,the negative externalities it generates are quitesubstantial.

The configuration of cities in terms of form,structure and function has been highly influenced bythe dominance of private transport infrastructure,facilities and services. The embedded imperative ofprivate motorization as the dominant mobility modehas dictated the layout and design of streets andneighbourhoods, dispersion of densities and locationof functions. Perpetuation of this model has generateda self-replicating crisis of urban accessibility.

Simultaneously, in most cities, the neglect ofurban freight distribution and management of freight transport – both in land-use and transport plan-ning – tends to make goods transportation a majorimpedi ment to sustainable urban mobility and toaccessing the city. The management principles andnorms guiding planning, design and delivery exacer -bate the situation further. Moreover, the regulatoryinstruments are not fully compatible with thedemands of sustainability.

In megacities of developing countries where themobility demand on major corridors is appropriatelyhigh, metros remain the only economically andenvironmentally viable public transport system. Forcities which do not have the passenger thresholdrequired for metros and/or the economic capacity toinvest in them, BRT has become a viable option, atleast in the short and medium term.

The report acknowledges the critical importanceof accessibility for enhancing the economies of

TOWARD SUSTAINABLE URBAN MOBILITY

C H A P T E R 10

agglomeration and urbanization. It underlines thaturban mobility and accessibility are key for promotingsustainable urban development. Consequently, thereis an urgent need to reframe urban mobility policiesand practices in order to address these shortcomings.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR REFRAMING URBANMOBILITYThis report advocates for a paradigm shift inaddressing urban mobility. It emphasizes the multi-dimensional nature of sustainable urban mobility, interms of both policy and operational implications. It also summarizes some of the key attributes for arecalibration of how cities are designed and planned,and how urban transport services are organized anddelivered in the quest for more sustainable mobilitysystems.

Urban mobility is finely woven into the spatial,social, economic, political, and environmental fabricof cities. Only by recognizing the systemic nature ofproblems (mispricing leads to over-consumption ofroads in peak periods; sprawling settlement patternsrender public transport systems ineffectual; urbandesign for machines creates cities for cars rather thanpeople) can significant headway be made in chartinga sustainable mobility future. There is thus an urgentneed for holistic and systemic thinking and action.

It is essential to recognize travel as a ‘deriveddemand’, i.e. transport is a means, not an end. Thisrealization envisages cities, neighbourhoods, regionsand mobility systems as tools that promote desiredsocietal outcomes – such as liveability and affordableaccess – with transport playing a supportive role.Operationally, this can take the form of compact,mixed-use communities that dramatically shortentrip distances and improve pedestrian and bicyclinginfrastructure.

Accessible cities not only put places (e.g. homesand workplaces, or ‘trip origins and destinations’)closer to each other, but also provide safe and efficientpedestrian and cycling corridors and affordable, high-quality public transport options. Accessible cities areinclusive, resourceful and pro-poor. Urban mobilitypolicies should thus place priority on accessibilityrather than transport.

POLICY AND OPERATIONAL ENTRY POINTSFrom the above normative framework, the finalsection of this report presents six policy andoperational areas that can be developed to suitdifferent settings, and through which accessibility-based sustainable mobility can be achieved. Theoverall logic of these lies in their strategic linkage andtheir cumulative potential for triggering policy and operational change.

Enhancing the linkage between landuse and transport

There is a disconnect between the essence of land-use and the logic of transport. This connection needsto be re-established for sustainable urban mobility tobe achieved; and it can only be effectively initiatedat the highest level – through national urban policyinitiatives. When properly articulated, national urbanpolicy offers the most authoritative instrument forelevating the linkage between land-use and transportplanning (beyond the bureaucratic and politicalcompromises often reached).

The key challenge is therefore not merely toovercome the separate handling of transport andland-use planning; or even to ensuring a juxtapositionof the two. Rather, it is to foster an organic integra-tion of the entire continuum of multi-modal mobilitywithin a holistic and sustainable land-use systemwhere dynamic synergies are harnessed, interconnec -tions are promoted and functionality optimized. Thecomprehensive integration of land-use and transportneeds to be thematically cross-cutting and multi-sectoral, reflecting the co-dependence of urbansystems.

Revitalizing urban planning andtransport engineering designs

The linkage between urban form and transport isrealized through the optimization of density, andenhanced proximity and co-location, as well asimprovements in the functionality and inclusivenessof places and facilities. Density can be optimizedthrough the use of regulatory instruments (such aszoning laws), the application of locational incentives


(such as infrastructural investments), and designinterventions. Compact configurations complementedby transport-oriented development minimize privatemotorization, while making it viable for cities toinvest in different modes of public transportation.

The planned optimization of density advocatedin this report enables the attainment of economiesof scale, making it viable to provide a range of facilitiesat the least cost. The compactness engendered allowsfor more public space while also exerting a minimumimpact on the environment. Coupled with appropriatedesign, it encourages non-motorized and publictransportation, fosters conviviality and strengthens asense of place.

A related attribute is the need to ensure diversityand mixed-use neighbourhoods. Mixed-land usepromotes non-motorized transport by increasingproximity and reducing the need to travel.

Realigning transport infrastructureinvestment and development

Gradual steps should be taken to correct the currentimbalance in funding and investments betweenprivate and public modes of transport. More publicresources need to be allocated to facilities which caterto the needs of the majority of people in both devel -oped and developing countries. It is particularlyimportant that cities investing in metro, light rail andhigh-end BRT systems direct larger shares of futuregrowth to public transport corridors.

The urban transport sector needs to be treatedas an integrated whole, through systems of financingand pricing. Dedicated, long-term funding is alsoessential to allow strategic, forward-looking planning,such as preserving rights of way for future infra -structure investments.

Toward Sustainable Urban Mobility 61

High-capacity public transport systems, and a focus on inter-modality, are essential components of a sustainable urban mobility system(London, UK)

Source: © Yon Marsh / Alamy


Among other financing sources, the option ofvalue capture is highly recommended as a comple -ment to public funding. Through recouping theincrease of value in adjacent land and converting itinto public finance for reinvestment in urban mobilitysystems, the linkage between land-use and transportis reinforced.

Owing to the financial constraints of local govern -ments and increased interest by private investors, theglobal urban transport sector has witnessed a surgein other forms of public–private partnership. Public–private partnerships have the potential to inject effi-ciencies in the urban transport sector and alsostimulate innovations, like market-based pricing andautomated toll collection. However, this report alsohighlights some of the potential dangers related tothe use of public–private partnerships in urbanmobility projects, such as the financial risks, whichtend to be carried by the public rather than by theprivate sector partners involved.

Integrating urban transport facilitiesand service operations

Properly designed transport systems also contributeto business expansion, increased economic outputand employment generation. Indeed, mobility is anecessary (though not a sufficient) precondition foreconomic growth and expansion. Efficiency mustunderpin management, operational and system designpractices throughout the urban transport sector.

Progressive projects and programmes – such asgreen transport-oriented development and ‘completestreets’ – do not suddenly appear, but begin withthoughtful plans and visions. Transport planningneeds to be well integrated with land-use planningat all levels of government. Through both carrots (e.g.financial aid) and sticks (e.g. regulatory requirements),national governments are uniquely positioned toencourage state/provincial, regional and local institu -tions to link transport investment and urban

Non-motorized transport is environmentally sustainable and well suited for making short trips in most cities (London, UK)

Source: © Alex Segre / Alamy

development strategies in master plans, zoningpractices and infrastructure design standards.

Streamlining urban institutions andgovernance framework

Innovative ideas and policies geared towardssustainable mobility require strong institutional andgovernance structures to oversee their successfulimplementation. Political will, sound leadership,transparency and accountability are essential inbuilding public trust. The planning institutions arevital to the entire process, as these are capable ofcreating compelling visions of urban futures. More -over, participatory mechanisms must be in place toensure that planning and investment decisions aresocially inclusive and representative of all segmentsof society. Technology itself can be an enabler of more

grass-roots and inclusive policymaking in urbantransport. Social media, for example, allow like-minded individuals to coalesce and shape publicdiscourse.

Responsibilities for the urban transport sectorare being decentralized across the world. It is essentialthat human and financial resources are made availablefor the successful handover of functions and invest -ment responsibilities from central to local govern -ments.

The development of fully integrated and sus -tainable multi-modal urban transportation systemsrequires robust regional governance structures, whichgives rise to inter-municipal cooperation. While mostof the innovations introduced in urban transport willcome from local and regional actors, higher levels ofgovernment also have a crucial role to play. Nationalurban transport policies that promote integrated

Toward Sustainable Urban Mobility 63

Dedicated non-motorized transport infrastructure is required to improve the safety of all road users (Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

Source: © Charlie Knight / Alamy

planning and provide capital loans and technicalassistance can help smaller cities develop sustainablemobility systems.

There is also a need to inject efficiencies,account ability and transparency in the urban transportdecision-making process. This requires the develop -ment and institutionalization of planning processesand evaluation approaches that are based on objectivemeasures of performance and tied to well-articulatedgoals and hoped-for outcomes.

Readjusting legal and regulatoryinstruments

The aforementioned interventions call for changes in the management of space, the built form, the engin -eering of transport systems, and social behaviour, aswell as in the institutional and financing arrangementsrelated to urban development. These elements arebuilt upon the legacy of a legal foundation that has

perpetuated mobility systems, which this report hasfound to be severely wanting. Any transformationwould therefore entail major reform in the legal andregulatory framework relating to urban management.For example, the ordinances guiding the planningprocess have to be amended from land-use segrega -tion and rigid zoning, towards fostering mixed-use andcompactness. The same applies to building codes andstandards, mandates and the authority allocated todifferent institutions, as well as to sanctions directedat reducing negative externalities.

While significant progress has been achieved insome cities, in terms of incorporating the necessarylaws and regulations for realizing some of the aboveobjectives, much remains to be done. The dire needfor fostering inclusiveness and environmental pro-tec tion not only calls for the enactment of a compre -hensive set of statutes, but also requires the consoli -dation of enforcement capacity, to ensure that thelaws and regulations are abided by.


Angel, S. (2011) Making Room for a Planet of Cities,Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.

Banister, D. (2005) Unsustainable Transport, Routledge,London.

Calthorpe, P. (2011) Urbanism in the Age of ClimateChange, Island Press, Washington, DC.

Carruthers, R., M. Dick and A. Saurkar (2005) Afford -ability of Public Transport in Developing Countries,The World Bank Group Transport Papers TP-3, WorldBank, Washington, DC, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTRANSPORT/214578–1099319223335/20460038/TP-3_affordability_final.pdf, last accessed25 March 2013.

Cervero, R. (1998) The Transit Metropolis: A GlobalInquiry, Island Press, Washington, DC.

CODATU (Cooperation for Urban Mobility in theDeveloping World) (2009) Who Pays What for UrbanTransport? Handbook of Good Practices, AgenceFrançaise de Développement (AFD), Ministère del’Ecologie, de l’Energie, du Développement durbaleet de la Mer France (MEEDDM) and CODATU,www.codatu.org/wp-content/uploads/handbook_good_practices.pdf, 16 May 2013.

Dimitriou, H. T. and R. Gakenheimer (eds) (2011) UrbanTransport in the Developing World: A Handbook ofPolicy and Practice, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Dunphy, R., R. Cervero, F. Dock, M. McAvoy and D. R.Porter (eds) (2004) Developing Around Transit:Strategies and Solutions That Work, Urban LandInstitute, Washington, DC.

Ewing, R. and R. Cervero (2010) ‘Travel and the builtenvironment: A meta-analysis’, Journal of theAmerican Planning Association 76(3): 265–294.

Flyvbjerg, B., N. Bruzelius and B. van Wee (2008)‘Comparison of capital costs per route-kilometre inurban rail’, European Journal of Transport and

Infrastructure Research 8(1): 17–30, http://vbn.aau.dk/files/14076659/Comparison_of_Capital_Costs.pdf, last accessed 30 January 2013.

Gwilliam, K. (2002) Cities on the Move: A World Bank Urban Transport Strategy Review, World Bank,Washington, DC, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANTRANSPORT/Resources/cities_on_the_move.pdf, last accessed 18 April 2013.

Hanson, S. and G. Giuliano (eds) (2004) The Geographyof Urban Transportation, Guilford Press, New York.

Hook, W. (2003) ‘Preserving and expanding the role ofnon-motorised transport’, Module 3d of SustainableTransport: A Sourcebook for Policy-makers inDeveloping Cities, GTZ, Eschborn, www.itdp.org/documents/NMTmodule.pdf, last accessed 26 March2013.

IEA (International Energy Agency) (2009) ‘Transport,energy and CO2: Moving towards sustainability’,Paris, www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/transport2009.pdf, last accessed 30January 2013.

IEA (2010) World Energy Outlook, International EnergyAgency, Paris, www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weo2010.pdf, last accessed 30 May 2013.

ITF (International Transport Forum) (2011) TransportOutlook: Meeting the Needs of 9 Billion People,Organization for Economic Development/InternationalTransport Forum, Paris, www.internationaltransportforum.org/Pub/pdf/11Outlook.pdf, last accessed 28May 2013.

Kenworthy, J. R. (2003) ‘Transport energy use andgreenhouse gases in urban passenger transportsystems: A study of 84 global cities’, Presented tothe Third International Conference of the RegionalGovernment Network for Sustainable Development,Notre Dame University, Fremantle, Western

SELECTED REFERENCES

This list of selected references contains only a few important publications in this field. A complete list ofreferences may be found in the full Planning and Design for Sustainable Urban Mobility: Global Report onHuman Settlements 2013.

Australia, 17–19 September, http://cst.uwinnipeg.ca/documents/Transport_Greenhouse.pdf, last accessed30 January 2013.

Kunieda, M. and A. Gauthier (2007) ‘Gender and urban transport: Smart and affordable’, Module 7a,Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy-makersin Developing Cities, revised edition September 2007,www.itdp.org/documents/7aGenderUT(Sept)300.pdf,last accessed 26 March 2013.

Litman, T. (2012) Evaluating Public Transit Benefits andCosts: Best Practices Guide Book, Victoria TransportPolicy Institute, Victoria, www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf,last accessed 18 April 2013.

Litman, T. (2013) Evaluating Non-Motorized Transporta -tion Benefits and Costs, Victoria Transport PolicyInstitute, Victoria, www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf, lastaccessed 18 April 2013.

Newman, P. and J. Kenworthy (1989) Cities and Auto -mobile Dependence: An International Sourcebook,Gower Press, Aldershot, UK.

Rodrigue, J-P., B. Slack and C. Comtois (2009) TheGeography of Transport Systems, Routledge, NewYork.

UITP (International Association of Public Transport)(2009) Public Transport: The Smart Green Solution!

Doubling Market Share Worldwide by 2025, Brussels,www.ptx2uitp.org/sites/default/files/UITP-PTstrategy_fullbrochure-EN.pdf, last accessed 30 January2013.

Vasconcellos, E. (2001) Urban Transport, Environmentand Equity: The Case for Developing Countries,Earthscan, London.

Vuchic, V. R. (2005) Urban Transit: Operations, Planning,and Economics, Wiley, New York.

World Bank (2008) Safe, Clean, and Affordable: Transportfor Development – The World Bank Group’s TransportBusiness Strategy for 2008–2012, Washington, DC.

World Bank and DfID (Department for InternationalDevelopment) (2009) Freight Transport for Devel -opment – Toolkit: Urban Freight, Washington, DC,http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTRANSPORT/Resources/336291–1239112757744/5997693–1266940498535/urban.pdf, last accessed 30 January2013.

World Bank Independent Evaluation Group (2007) ADecade of Action in Transport: An Evaluation of WorldBank Assistance to the Transport Sector, 1995–2005,World Bank, Washington, DC, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTTRANSPORTATION/Resources/transport_eval.pdf, last accessed 6 March 2013.


planning and design for sustainable urban mobility: policy directions

Documents