emi sustainable urban mobility.pdf

8/21/2019 EMI Sustainable Urban Mobility.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/emi-sustainable-urban-mobilitypdf 1/106

A Strategic Knowledge and Research Agenda on

Sustainable Urban Mobility



A Strategic Knowledge and Research Agenda onSustainable Urban Mobility



Sustainable Urban Mobility 4

European Metropolitan network Institute

Laan van N.O. Indië 3002593 CE The HaguePostbus 907502509 LT The Hague

Phone +31(0)70 344 09 66Fax +31(0)70 344 09 67

Email [email protected] www.emi-network.eu

The responsibility for the contents of thisreport lies with European Metropolitannetwork Institute and the cooperating urbanpractitioners. Quoting is permitted onlywhen the source is clearly mentioned. Nopart of this publication may be copied and/or published in any form or by any means, or

stored in a retrieval system, without the priorwritten permission of EMI.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.emi-network.eu/





5 Sustainable Urban Mobility

Content

Executive summary 7

‘Sustainable Urban Mobility’

1 Introduction 11

1.1 Urban mobility in Europe: need for research 11

1.2 Goal and approach of a Knowledge and Research Agenda on‘Sustainable Urban Mobility’ 12

1.3 Theoretical Framework 13

1.4 Outline Strategic Knowledge and Research Agenda Part I & II 17

2 EU and city policy practice 19

2.1 Introduction 19

2.2 EU Policy Context on Sustainable Urban Mobility 19

2.3 City policy context Sustainable Urban Mobility 22

3 Sustainable Urban Transport Research: 29 a State of the Art Review

3.1 Introduction – the evolving research agenda ofsustainable urban transport 29

3.2 Identifying key research themes 30

3.3 ICT and vehicle technology 34

3.4 Urban space and scale 36

3.5 Lifestyle and behaviour 40

3.6 Regulation and pricing 42




3.7 Governance 44

3.8 Conclusions 45

4 Synthesis 49

4.1 Synthesis Introduction 49

4.2 Synthesis State of the Art policy practice and research 50

4.3 Research questions and needs from practice and research 52

4.4 Analysis 56

4.5 Knowledge and Research Agenda: next steps 64

Bibliography Sustainable Urban Mobility 75




Executive summary EMI’s Knowledge and

Research Agenda ‘Sustainable Urban Mobility’

In this EMI Knowledge and Research Agenda,

the gap between research and practice in

the field of urban mobility will be bridged by

looking at research needs from a practical

(urban) point of view. Renowned academic

authors wrote position papers on the main

themes (see below) and policy documents of

many European cities have been analysed.

Most importantly, European and city policy-

makers have been asked what kind ofresearch they need in their (long-term) policy

implementation. This process has led to an

agenda consisting of a state of the art in both

academic research and policy practice and

future research needs on sustainable urban

mobility, based on the needs in actual city

practice in Europe.

Last year, the European Commission

proposed a ‘new type of mobility’ inEuropean cities in the Working Documentaccompanying the White Paper on the Futureof Transport (2011): “the necessary transition

from a primarily car-based personal mobility incities to a mobility based on walking, cycling,high quality public transport and less-usedcleaner passenger vehicles is the central strategic

challenge for cities in the decades to come”. Thisis very similar to the long-term visions and

ambitions (e.g. 2040/2050) of European citiesand metropolitan areas. Cities know thatthey must change their current mobilitysystems, but they struggle how effectiveaction is undertaken to remedy the currentsituation. Academic research also points tothis problem, but the findings of research areuntil now insufficient to lead cities to moresustainable mobility systems. That is whyEMI has created a research-based, practice-

led Knowledge and Research Agenda onsustainable urban mobility.

The Agenda focuses on five main themes.These themes have been selected after ananalysis of both research and practice, aworkshop and continuous consultation withcity practitioners and academic experts. Onall main themes the state of the art of bothresearch and practice are combined andresearch needs for the future are indicated.Here you find the final conclusions per theme:

The first theme ‘urban space and scale’ relatesto all measures and interventions thatconcern the physical design of a city. In citypractice there is much belief that measuresand interventions in land use planning havea causal relationship with mobility reduction,energy efficiency and less car use. However,this causal effect is questioned by academicresearch, which also has a more spatial than

infrastructural focus in this theme. Researchfirmly connecting land use planning andmobility behaviour is especially needed onland use planning and its impact on mobility,urban economy and urban sprawl.

The second theme ‘regulation and pricing’ isconcerned with the powerful tools of citiesto reduce unwanted modes of transport andstimulate the use of alternative mobility.

Interestingly, a large amount of researchis devoted to the issue of pricing, whilst atthe same time, political reluctance in manycities prevents the implementation of pricingschemes. Moreover, an issue of governancearises; on what scale should regulationand pricing schemes be decided on? Citiesinstead seem more focused on parkingpolicies. Future research is necessary in thefollowing areas: the combination of pricing

and regulation, urban parking policies andsolutions how to increase acceptance ofpricing schemes by citizens (and politicians).




Regarding the third theme, ‘lifestyle andbehaviour’, one should think of any policywith an aim to obtain a behavioural changetowards more sustainable transport modes.This is a very popular policy tool as it isrelatively cheap and visible. Many cities do

indicate their need of research on citizenmentality and behavioural change. Researchneeds in this field are: studies on the long-term effectiveness of these measures, ontransferability of practice from one place toanother and more extensive evaluation ofthese measures.

The fourth theme ‘ITS and Technology’ isoriented towards the question how cities

can make best use of (existing) technologicalopportunities. Regarding this theme, it provesto be difficult to bring together research and

practice; there is lack of specific knowledge/expertise in cities and it is questionablewhether cities can (or even should) stay up todate with current innovations and implementthese into sustainable urban mobility policy.Research needs to be focused on ‘future-

proof’ technologies, rebound effects of ICTinnovation on mobility and on facilitatingthe full inclusion and implementation of ITS& Technology in sustainable urban mobilitypolicy.

Although the fifth and overarching themeof ‘governance’ proved to be a peculiarand less specified theme, local decision-makers consider it very important. Given

the many connections with the otherthemes, ‘governance’ therefore is seenas an overarching theme in this agenda.

Shutterstock 124255




The question of how to integrate policiesand come up with packages of measuresis interesting for both research andpractice fields. Especially from a researchperspective, questions focused on what waybenchmarking and ‘best practices’ actuallyhelp cities in their implementation. Morepractice-oriented research is necessary on:the integrated approach, policy packaging,

the coherence between (long-term) ambitionsand (short-term) implementation, the rightcombination of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ policymeasures and the transferability of urbanmobility policy.

This EMI Knowledge and Research Agendais the result of a year-long investigation intothe future research needs on sustainableurban mobility. It has been remarkable to

see how urban research and urban practicediffer in their focus. An approach based oncollaboration between research and practice,focused on the actual problems in cities(‘research-based, practice-led’) can helpcities in their transition to more sustainablemobility systems.

The (fundamental) practice-oriented researchneeds, as drawn up in this report, can be

addressed in a new European knowledgeand research project in close collaborationbetween (city)policy-makers and academicresearchers in a city-research consortiumfor sustainable urban mobility. This is all themore necessary as most current European‘research’ projects in this field do have theirown ‘deliverables’ aiming to disseminateproject results. These deliverables andshowcases have proven to be very positive

for the development of plans within citiesbut, at the same time however, have provento be very difficult to transfer. Moreover, few

(fundamental, academic) research needs andquestions have been asked or answered. Alarger focus on practice-oriented research andtransferability on these main themes couldreally help more European cities to deliversustainable urban mobility systems.

Please contact us via [email protected]

EMI asks all the cities, regions, universities,

research institutes and other stakeholdersto support this quest for integrated andmultidisciplinary research. Therefore, wekindly invite all stakeholders involvedto give their views and support and(potentially) join the consortium for (a

multiannual programme for) future

applied research in the field of sustainable

urban mobility based on the researchneeds of European cities and metropolitan

areas.

mailto:info%40emi-network.eu?subject=







1 Introduction

1.1 Urban mobility in Europe:need for research

Cities, as living organisms, accommodatehigh-density populations and they offerspace for activities such as living, working,

education, shopping and recreation.Connecting these various activities spatiallyallocated in the urban / metropolitan areascreates a need for mobility of people (andgoods). Mobility supports the economicvitality of cities and metropolitan regions,and contributes to the social life therein.Inhabitants of cities enjoy the socio-economicachievements of the last decades, withautomobiles, public transport, bicycles and

the possibility of walking (routes) all availablewithin short reach. As a consequence of thewidespread introduction of the car sincethe 1960s the daily urban systems havebeen extended. Mobility in cities in 2012means freedom of movement and choice forindividual citizens and social and economicdevelopment for the cities as a whole.

Next to its primarily positive connotations,

urban mobility – especially based onprivate motorised transport - has negativeexternalities for cities and urban areas.Among the various modes for passengertransport, personal motorised vehicles,in particular cars, are a major generatorof various negative externalities such aspollutant emissions, traffic accidents andcongestion. Furthermore, individualisedvehicles claim an increasing amount of space,

which impedes the quality of life in cities. Byexamining the share of different transportmodes in (urban) Europe, it becomes clear

that car use dominates in comparison to theuse of other modes of mobility, such as publictransport, cycling and walking. There is anevident need for a modal shift; to shift to moresustainable modes of transport, as well ascleaner fuels and vehicles.

According to recent research it is hard tobeat walking and cycling when it comesto environmental, economic and socialsustainability.1 Therefore, a modal shiftnecessarily involves measures directedat promoting walking, cycling and theuse of public transport, as well as othersupportive measures (incentives) to promoteintermodality between these different modes.

This is parallel to the recent call of EuropeanCommission for a new type of mobility, whichinvolves

a necessary transition from a primarily car based personal mobility in cities to a mobility based onwalking and cycling, high quality public transportand less-used and cleaner passenger vehicles.2

Looking closely at future vision documents

of European cities and metropolitan areas,they appear to use the same rhetoric, butthey do not seem certain about which policy/

1 John Pucher and Ralph Buehler (2010); ‘Walking and

Cycling for Healthy Cities’, Built Environment, vol.

36, no. 4, p. 391.

2 SEC (2011)391 final: ‘Commission Staff Working

Document accompanying the White Paper –

Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area:Towards a competitive and resource efficient

transport system’, p. 89.




measures they should implement in the shortand long-term to realise their ambitions onsustainable urban mobility. For example,which investments and policy measures tochoose in order to meet certain targets? Howto implement them? How to create synthesisbetween ambitions and actual measures?How to monitor effectiveness? What couldreally help cities and urban areas in their

sustainable urban mobility goals, is urbanresearch that can easily be applied to urbanpractice.

This Strategic Knowledge and ResearchAgenda (KRA) starts from this point: Thereis a need for (fundamental) research in thefield of sustainable urban mobility, which ishelpful for cities and urban areas so that theycan make their urban mobility system more

sustainable. This KRA presents the relevantresearch questions in this field.

1.2 Goal and approach of aKnowledge and ResearchAgenda on ‘Sustainable UrbanMobility’

Originally, most cities in Europe were notbuilt to be dependent upon car use3. By now,

people in urban areas in Europe use their carextensively, but both in scientific research

and EU policy contexts the conviction is thatexcessively automobile dependent cities willdecline in the 21st century unless they adaptto a new urban reality.4 This ‘new urbanreality’ is most often called a ‘sustainable’urban reality.

How do cities realise this new urban reality?And how can academic research support

cities in realising this sustainable mobilitysystem? This KRA brings together urbanpractice and urban research on sustainablemobility. Although a lot of research hasbeen done in the field of sustainableurban mobility, this has not been applied(sufficiently) in practice. Moreover, manyimportant practical questions are notaddressed in urban research. This KRAfocuses on what knowledge European cities

and urban areas need from urban researchin order to make the mobility system in theircities more sustainable. This report presentsthe most important research needs andquestions for the near urban future, basedon the challenges in cities and urban areas(‘research-based, practice-led’). The reportsets the agenda for cities with the ambitionto implement sustainable urban mobilitysystems based on scientifically-based

knowledge and insights.

The ultimate goal of this Knowledge andResearch Agenda is to bring together theknowledge needs from urban practiceand state of the art research in the field ofsustainable mobility, so that (fundamental)research questions and needs that are basedon the actual problems in the urban policycontext can be drawn up. These fundamental

research questions can be addressed ina grand future (applied) ‘meta’ researchprogramme based around the main themes

3 Peter W G Newman and Jeffrey R Kenworthy (1996),

‘The land use-transport connection: an overview’,

Land Use Policy, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1-22.

4 Ibid, p.9, or see p. 6: “the unfettered automobile

city ‘dream’ soon became a ‘nightmare”. See

also COM(2007) 551 final: ‘Green Paper: Towards

a new culture for urban mobility’, p. 8: The main

environmental issues in towns and cities are relatedto the predominance of oil as a transport fuel, which

generates CO2, air pollutant emissions and noise.




(see 1.3) and its research questions, in closecollaboration with the cities. European citiesand urban areas can then be strengthenedby means of integrated, coordinated andoverarching knowledge on sustainableurban mobility. The production of this (new)knowledge contributes to the creation of newand sustainable urban mobility systems.

This report on Sustainable Urban Mobility isa product of connecting the policy practiceof the cities and metropolitan regions to theresearch conducted in the scientific worldin the field of urban mobility. Staring pointwas the knowledge and research needs ofcities, and the identification of the need fornew research based on demands of cities.This offers ‘stepping stones’ to realise thenecessary (from both research and EU

policy) transition towards a mobility based

on walking and cycling, high quality publictransport and cleaner passenger vehicles(which are consequently used less). Thisdemand-driven approach has many benefits:the experiences of the cities and urbanregions and the accumulated knowledge ofacademia have provided input in shaping ouragenda. Further, the report will contributeto giving direction to the future of urban

mobility policy and research in Europe. Ageneral overview of all activities that havebeen undertaken in the process of this reportcan be found in the Appendix.

1.3 Theoretical Framework

In virtually all mobility policies or generalstrategic visions of European cities,sustainable urban mobility is mentioned

as one of the key elements of a future –

Policychallenges

Results ofrecent

research

Sustainable urban mobility

S c i en c e

Policy prioritiesin the current

policy plans

E u r o p e a n c i t i e s a n d

m e t r o p o l i t a n r e g i o n s

Knowledgeand

ResearchAgenda

Fundamentalresearch

questions onsustainable

urban mobilityPolicy

ambitions

Academicposition papers

on State ofthe Art main

themesurban mobility

Figure 1 process of KRA




prosperous and liveablecity. Recurringthemes in city policies from across Europe are

cycling, priority for public transport, sharedmobility, infrastructural changes (co-existingtransport modes), integrated land-useplanning, attractive city centres, regulationand pricing, campaigning and awarenessraising to change mobility behaviour,clean(er) vehicles, ITS and technologicalinnovation. In this way European cities seemto realise the “key lesson that no singlestrategy is sufficient”.5 Cities give importance

to sustainable urban mobility and are alreadyforming plans to implement sustainableurban mobility systems in the comingdecades.

However, there seems to be a discrepancybetween long-term visions or ambitionsand the implementation of concrete policymeasures. Even when specific targets arebeing set (e.g. percentages of CO2 reduction

or rise in share of cycling in the modal share),there is not much clarity on how, and throughthe implementation of which measures, thesetargets will be met.

In research this tension between sense ofurgency on the one hand and concrete action

on the other has been identified. A leadingresearch article in the field of sustainable(urban) mobility is ‘the sustainable mobility paradigm’ written by David Banister (2008)6.Earlier, in 2005, Banister already pointed tothe ‘schizophrenic paths’ in transport policyas it “is clear that action is needed, but no effectiveaction is undertaken to remedy the current

situation”.7 According to Banister, a sustainablemobility approach requires actions to reduce

the need to travel (less trips), to encouragea modal shift, to reduce the trip lengthsand encourage a greater efficiency in the(urban) transport system. As regards the‘how’ question of a transition, the pioneeringapproach was ‘information’ in its broadestsense: awareness-raising, informationeducation, media and advertising.8 Lately,other (more restrictive) measures have beenintroduced to reduce car-use: so-called ‘push’

(as opposed to ‘pull’) measures. Accordingto Banister it is only through understandingand acceptance by the people in citiesthemselves that sustainable mobility willsucceed in playing a central role in the futureof sustainable cities.9

Recent scientific articles as well as the recentWhite Paper of the European Commissionpoint to the unavoidable necessity of a

transition towards a more sustainable urbanmobility which necessarily involves lesscar use. In this transition it is not necessaryto overthrow the whole urban design andthe ‘achievements’ of earlier generations.Therefore, the main question is a dualquestion:

How do actors in cities and urban areas in their policies for sustainable urban mobility strive

for a transition towards a mobility based onwalking and cycling, high quality public transportand cleaner passenger vehicles which are used



36, no. 4, p. 415. See also David Banister (2008), ‘The

sustainable mobility paradigm’, Transport Policy, vol.

15, pp. 73-80.6 David Banister (2008), ‘The sustainable mobility

paradigm’, Transport Policy, vol. 15, pp. 73-80.

7 David Banister (2005), ‘Unsustainable Transport: City

Transport in the New Century’, Routledge, London,

p. 234.

8 David Banister (2008), p. 74 citing OECD

(Organisation for Economic Cooperation and

Development), 2002; ‘Global long term projections

for motor vehicle emissions MOVE II project,

Working Group on Transport, ENV/EPOC/WPNEP/T(2002)8/REV1, Paris.

9 David Banister (2008), p. 80.




less, while preserving the social and economicachievements of their current mobility systems?

Within the broad frame of sustainable urbanmobility four themes can be identified: urbanspace & scale, regulation & pricing, lifestyle &behaviour and ITS & technology. Additionally, afifth and overarching theme can be identified:the ‘management’ of the integrated approach:governance. Governance will recur as anoverarching theme as it is related to all mainthemes.

The first main theme ‘urban space & scale’ relates to all measures and interventions thatconcern the physical design of a city. Whatis the influence of the developments of newareas, densification of existing parts of thecity and reallocation of street spaces (e.g.bicycle paths instead of parking spaces) onthe daily urban systems in European cities?As physical interventions are of a permanent

character, most interventions classifiedwithin the theme’ ‘urban space’ thereforecould be classified as ‘hard’ measures.

By ‘regulation and pricing’, the second theme,-local- authorities have some powerful toolsto reduce unwanted modes of transport andstimulate the use of alternative mobility.The topic is usually politically sensitive, andbesides there is a lack of clarity on which

level these measures should best be decidedon. This is very topical as the EuropeanCommission foresees a move towards fullapplication of ‘user pays’ and ‘polluter pays’principles and private sector engagementto eliminate distortions, including harmfulsubsidies, generate revenues and ensurefinancing for future transport investments.10

Regarding the main theme ‘‘lifestyle &

behaviour’, one should think of any policyaiming to obtain behavioural change towardsmore sustainable transport choices. This

could include awareness-raising campaignsproviding information about alternatives,

training and education programmes orassisting large companies in setting upmobility plans. As these ‘softer’ measuresare often easier to take (in terms of support,planning, finances and time) there are manyexamples of these measures across Europe.But which measures work best? Is there anygeographical difference?

‘ITS & Technology’ plays an essential role in

establishing a transition towards sustainableurban mobility. This theme partly coverscurrent technological innovations suchas cleaner cars and public transport. Nextto these, other developments such asteleworking or teleshopping and providingreal-time (and/or personalised) informationfor users of public transport11 are also part ofthis main theme. An important question is:How can cities best make use of the existing

technical opportunities?

10 COM(2011) 144 final, European Commission; ‘White

Paper, Roadmap to a Single European Transport

Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient


11 See also COM(2011) 144 final, European

Commission; ‘White Paper, Roadmap to a Single

European Transport Area – Towards a competitive

and resource efficient transport system’, p. 27 withspecific attention for ITS and European multimodal

transport information.




Table 1 Main themes ‘Sustainable Urban Mobility’: key words and subjects

Key words, themes and subjects

Urban space

& scale

Transit-oriented development, densification, mixed-use development, car-free zones, street design,reducing (need for) vehicle travel, integrated landuse planning, influencing travel behaviour throughplanning, smart growth, accessibility improvements,option value, Smart growth, reallocation of space,priority for public transport, cycling friendly streets,

pedestrianisation of central areas, liveability &quality of life.

GovernanceSpecific theme related to the othermain themes: Urban Space & Scale,Regulation & Pricing, Lifestyle &Behaviour and ITS & Technology.

Includes:

Binding decisions in public sphere,arrangements, strengthening oflower levels of self-government,increasing diversity and asymmetryhow territories within nation stategoverned, marketization, policyintegration, benchmarking, policyindicators and best practice guides,policy packaging, policy transfer,policy experimentation/innovation,visioning/envisioning.

Regulation

& pricing

Pricing policies, congestion charging schemes,internalisation of external costs, parking policies,road pricing, polluter pays principle, cost effectivepublic transport, public transport pricing andregulation, park and ride, home and low emissionzones, subsidies for cleaner/ electric vehicles, greenprocurement (PT).

Lifestyle

& behaviour

Lifestyle, mobility behaviour patterns, cardependence, time-space geography, freedom

of choice, changes in family composition andlifestyle (that) influence travel behaviour, car-freechoosers, car sharing, awareness-raising/education/information: is the car the best option for this trip?,vehicle sharing, corporate mobility plans.

Its & technology Intelligent Transport Systems, Information andCommunication Technologies, real-time passengerinformation (RTPI), mobile devices, substitutionpotential of ICT for travel, multimodal connectivity,electric vehicles, shared means of transport,adaptive traffic management, dynamic road pricing,

privacy issues, green cars, cleaner vehicles, appsfor more efficient travel, integrated (multimodal) journey planners.




1.4 Outline Strategic Knowledgeand Research Agenda Part I & II

This Strategic Knowledge and ResearchAgenda on ‘Sustainable Urban Mobility’ iscomprised of two parts. This document, PartI, summarises all separate sections of thisAgenda and concludes with the proposedresearch agenda on sustainable urban

mobility. In part II one finds the individualposition papers of academics, the detailedstate of the art reports and the inspiringurban practices of individual European cities.After an introductory chapter Part I of theAgenda continues with Chapter 2 on the‘state of the art’ of the policy practice inboth EU policy and city policies. Chapter 3outlines a ‘state of the art’ on the researchon sustainable urban mobility. Specific

attention is paid to earlier research agendason sustainable mobility. Finally, the synthesisof the different themes and (fundamental)research questions and research needs for thefuture based on the actual needs of policy-makers in European cities is presented inChapter 4.

An extensive ‘Part II’ of the StrategicKnowledge and Research Agenda comprises

academic articles, wide-ranging policycontexts and interesting city practices forpeer to peer learning of urban practitionersacross Europe. In the first section (A) of PartII the academic position papers on the stateof the art of different themes are presented.Six renowned academics have written (orcontributed to) position papers on the mainthemes of this Agenda.12 Specific attentionin the position papers is paid to the link

between urban practice and urban research;further research questions relevant for citypractice are also pointed out. In the second

section (B) of Part II, the EU policy context inthe field of sustainable urban mobility since1995 is elaborated on. In section C (thirdsection) the policy measures and mobilityplans in European cities are more extensivelydiscussed. The last section of Part II, theUrban Practice Guide, gives an overview of‘city mobility practices’ across Europe in thefield of mobility, clustered by the different

themes. City practitioners were asked tointroduce their project, provide ‘do’s’ and‘don’ts’ for other practitioners and indicate inwhat way they benefited from urban researchor in what way they would benefit from(future) urban research. The ‘city mobilitypractices’ are geographically spread acrossEurope, featuring some well-known examples(e.g. London, Stockholm, Sevilla) as well asless renowned examples (e.g. Sofia, Poznan,

Hannover).

12 Prof. van Wee (TU Delft, The Netherlands) and

Prof. Handy (University of California, Davis, USA)

have written a position paper on ‘urban space &

scale’, Prof. Nash (University of Leeds, UK) and Prof.

Whitelegg (John Moores University, Liverpool, UK)

on ‘regulation & pricing’, Prof. Goodwin (University

West of England, Bristol, UK) on ‘lifestyle andbehaviour’ and Dr. Šitavancová (VŠB-TU Ostrava,

Czech Republic) on ‘ITS & technology’






2 EU and city policy practice

2.1 Introduction

Urban mobility, and the aspired transitiontowards more sustainable urban mobilitysystems, is a policy field which is of relevanceto local practitioners as well as to EU policy-

makers and national ministers. Given the aimto develop a Knowledge and Research agendabased on both urban practice and research,the policies of various levels will be reviewedand analysed.

In this chapter, a concise state of the art ofcurrent policy practice (and cities ambitions)on urban mobility is presented.13 The firstpart of this chapter is concerned with the

EU policy context from both the EuropeanCommission as well as with the (informal)meetings of national Ministers for urbandevelopment and territorial cohesion. Itshows that (sustainable) urban mobilityis (since the mid-1990s) an increasinglyimportant issue on the European agenda.

The second part contains the analysis ofthe current –policypractice of European

urban areas. It shows that sustainable urbanmobility (planning) is a top priority in urbanpolicy ambitions and plans. Despite the senseof urgency for a transition towards moresustainable urban mobility, there appears tobe a mismatch between long-term visionsor ambitions and the actual policy measuresthat are implemented. Furthermore, thereare clearly more incentives (i.e. promotionof alternative modes of transport) than

disincentives (reduction of car use throughregulatory and fiscal measures).

Due to time constraints and (language)difficulties in accessing national policydocuments, the layer of national governmentsdoes not form a separate part of the policypractice ‘state of the art’. National positionsand ambitions are, however, reflected

through incorporating conclusions/Accords/Declarations etc. of assemblies from thenational Ministers for urban developmentand territorial cohesion and their specificconclusions on urban mobility.

This overview of urban mobility policy willsubsequently result in research needs andquestions that stem from urban practice (seeChapter 4).

2.2 EU Policy Context on SustainableUrban Mobility

With regards to the EU policy context (in thisapproach both the European Commissionas well as national Ministers for urbandevelopment and territorial cohesion) ‘urbanmobility’ is placed high on the agenda. Thisdevelopment already started in the mid-1990s

and was recently manifested in the landmarkdocument of the European Commission:White Paper ‘Roadmap to a Single EuropeanTransport Area – towards a competitive andresource efficient transport system’(2011). Inthis document with specific proposals on EUaction, urban mobility plays an importantrole.

13 In Part II of this KRA, more elaborate chapters onboth EU policy practice and urban mobility practice

are included.




In its first White Paper14 (1992) the EuropeanCommission had as its main aim to openup the markets: boundless and infinitefreedom of movement across EU borders.The Commission seemed to realise quitesoon that this development could lead toan overemphasis on individual motorisedvehicles with consequential congestioneffects in European cities and harmful

effects on environment, public health and

road safety.15 From the mid-1990s onwardsthe European Commission started its‘sustainable urban mobility’ impulses withits first pricing initiatives16, a particular focuson public transport and the initiation of the‘best-practice’17 and information exchangeapproach.

The Commission became increasingly aware

that, due to the subsidiarity principle18

, the

Commission did not have the possibility todo much more in this area besides promotingstudy and exchange of best practices.However, the line of the Commissionremained clear and ambitious in the 2000swith promotion of clean vehicles, alternativeenergies, an integrated approach of townplanning and adequate public transport

provisions.19

The increasing importance attached to thefield of urban mobility within the EuropeanCommission culminated in the Green Paper‘towards a new culture for urban mobility’in 200720 which recognised urban mobilityas an important facilitator of growth andemployment with a strong impact onsustainable development in the EU. The

‘new urban mobility culture’ as mentionedin the Green Paper, laid an emphasis on theco-modality between the different modesof collective and individual transport. TheAction Plan on Urban Mobility (2009)21 proposed more concrete actions on themessuch as ‘promoting integrated policies’,‘focusing on citizens’ and ‘sharing experienceand knowledge’.

At present, the 2011 White Paper ‘Roadmap toa Single European Transport Area – towards acompetitive and resource efficient transport

14 COM(92)494 final: ‘The Future Development of the

Common Transport Policy: A Global Approach to the

Construction of a Community Framework for Sustainable

Mobility - White Paper’.

15 Therefore, the Commission was one of the first

to start the discussion on road pricing and policy

options for internalising the external costs, see

COM(95)691 final: ‘Towards Fair and Efficient Pricingin Transport Policy: options for Internalising the

External Costs of Transport in the European Union’

16 COM(95)691, Policy document European

Commission (1995): ‘Towards fair and efficient

pricing in transport’ .

17 These ‘best practice’ initiatives culminated in

2002 in the launch of the very successful CIVITAS

initiative for clean and better transport in urban

areas http://www.civitas-initiative.org/main.

phtml?lan=en18 Article 5(3) TEU in which it is stated that “the Union

shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of

the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved

by the Member States, either at central level or at

regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of

the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better

achieved at Union level.”

19 COM (2001)370 final: ‘European transport policy for

2010: time to decide’

20 COM(2007)551 final: ‘Green Paper: Towards a newculture for urban mobility’

21 COM(2009)490 final: ‘Action Plan on Urban Mobility’

http://www.civitas-initiative.org/main.phtml?lan=en







system’22 is the main transport document inwhich the European Commission sketches itsambitious targets for the coming decades (upto 2050), also in the field of urban mobility.The ‘new type of mobility’ as proposed inthe accompanying working document of theWhite Paper is especially interesting:

“the necessary transition from a primarily car

based personal mobility in cities to a mobilitybased on walking and cycling, high quality publictransport and less-used and cleaner passengervehicles is the central strategic challenge for citiesin the decades to come”23

Various measures, targets and goals thatdirectly relate to the (necessary) modal shiftin European urban regions are underlined inthe White Paper, such as:

– A higher share of travel by collectivetransport– Road pricing and the removal of distortions

in taxation to encourage the use of publictransport

– A move towards full application ofthe principles ‘user pays’ and ‘polluterpays’ and private sector engagement toeliminate distortions, including harmfulsubsidies.

– Facilitating walking and cycling as integralpart of urban mobility and infrastructuredesign

– Halve the use of ‘conventionally-fuelled’cars in urban transport by 2030 and phasethem out in cities by 2050.

– Integrated urban mobility by establishingprocedures and financial mechanisms (e.g.urban mobility audit)

The funded applied European researchprojects24 on sustainable urban mobilityhave had some very strong and interesting

consortia of partners including researchinstitutes, cities, regions, technologicalpartners, public companies andmanufacturers altogether. All projectshad their own ‘deliverables’ with the aimof disseminating (project) results. Thesedeliverables and showcases have, however,proven difficult to transfer and not many(fundamental) general research questions

have been asked nor answered.

Meanwhile, Ministers for urban developmentand territorial cohesion also underlined theimportance of ‘sustainable communities’in the last decade. The Bristol Accord(2005)25 asserted that cities should be ‘wellconnected’ with good transport servicesand communication linking people to jobs,schools, health and other services. These

transport facilities help people travel moresustainably and ‘reduce their dependence’ oncars. It also offers facilities to encourage moresafe local walking and cycling. The BristolAccord was the first informal ministerial

22 COM(2011)144 final: ‘White Paper: Roadmap to

a Single European Transport Area – Towards a

competitive and resource efficient transport system’23 SEC (2011)391 final: ‘Commission Staff Working


Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area:

Towards a competitive and resource efficient


24 For example in CIVITAS projects, see http://www.

civitas.eu/index.php?id=69 ; 2012

25 Bristol Accord, Conclusions of Ministerial Informal

Meeting on Sustainable Communities in Europe,

during UK Presidency, 2005. http://www.eib.org/attachments/jessica_bristol_accord_sustainable_

communities.pdf

http://www.civitas.eu/index.php?id=69


http://www.eib.org/attachments/jessica_bristol_accord_sustainable_communities.pdf











meeting in which urban mobility played alarge(r) role.

Building on a number of previous keydocuments on urban policy, the LeipzigCharter (2007) 26on Sustainable EuropeanCities is a particularly important document.The Charter defines two key objectives:– Integrated urban development should be

applied throughout Europe– Deprived neighbourhoods must receivemore attention within an integrated urbandevelopment policy

The ministers emphasised in the LeipzigCharter that ‘efficient and affordable urbantransport’, essentially public transport, shouldbe promoted in deprived neighbourhoodsin order to organise the same mobility and

accessibility as in other neighbourhoods.As part of an ‘integrated approach’ theLeipzig Charter points to an efficient andaffordable transport system by modernisinginfrastructure networks and improvingenergy efficiency. This can improve ‘quality

26 Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities, 24

May 2007. www.eu2007.de

27 The first cities and countries in North- West Europealready started with (more) sustainable planning in

the 1970’s and 1980’s

28 These findings correspond with the conclusions

of ‘The State-of-the-Art of Sustainable Urban

Mobility Plans in Europe’ published by Eltis in 2011

(http://mobilityplans.eu/docs/file/eltisplus_state-

of-the-art_of_sumps_in_europe_july2011.pdf .The

importance of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans is

emphasised in the European Commission’s Action

Plan on Urban Mobility (Action 1), which has led toseveral European projects concerning the topic, such

as Eltis, Eltis+ and Niches.

of life, locational quality and the quality ofthe environment’. The following informalministerial meetings have been built uponthe ‘cornerstones’ of the Leipzig Charter. The‘sustainable’ focus of the ministers seems tobe more on social and environmental aspectsthan on economic features, focusing insteadon accessibility in deprived neighbourhoods,affordable public transport and energy

efficiency.

Thus, both the European Commission and theministers for urban development are aimingfor a transition to more sustainable urbanmobility taking into account environmentalconcerns. The ‘How-question’ and theconsequences for the current social andeconomic achievements are, however, notanswered or addressed in the EU policy

context. Future research that identifies this‘How-question’ on the proposed main themescan help the EU and the national ministers tocome up with concrete plans.

2.3 City policy context SustainableUrban Mobility

Despite large differences in size, geographicallocation, economic development and mobility

systems between the cities in Europe,the ambitions and visions with regard tosustainable urban mobility are largely similar.The starting point or the current mobilitysituation of cities does, however, vary widely.Generally speaking it can be stated thatcities in North Western Europe have begunstriving for sustainable urban mobility muchearlier27 than their counterparts in Southernand Eastern Europe.28 Cities that have been

working on sustainable planning for a longertime show more comprehensive policy

http://www.eu2007.de/

http://mobilityplans.eu/docs/file/eltisplus_state-of-the-art_of_sumps_in_europe_july2011.pdf








plans regarding both urban sustainability ingeneral and sustainable urban mobility inparticular. There are of course exceptions to

this statement; cities in Scotland and Ireland,for example, lag behind, while some Spanishcities have clear proof of their successfulsustainable mobility planning.

In general, cities’ future visions mentionsustainable urban mobility as one of the keyelements of a future prosperous and liveablecity. In their mobility policy plans, manyEuropean cities identify problems in the

current mobility situation, such as decreasingaccessibility (mainly due to congestion),dominance of cars in urban space anddecreasing quality of life for citizens. Thisis seen as both an undesired and untenablesituation.

In order to tackle these problems, urban areasin Europe are planning and working towardsmore sustainable urban mobility systems.

Regarding their approaches, one can identifyseveral general trends on ambitions, conceptsand policy themes.

The most important components of cities’visions and ambitions for sustainable urbanmobility are an enhanced accessibility of

the city (thus, a solution for the currentcongestion problems), a more sustainable modalsplit (i.e. less cars, more use of alternativemodes of transport), green and attractive public

spaces and less pressure on the environment.

In order to reach these ambitions, variousconcepts are introduced in an effort towardsmore sustainable urban mobility systems.Obviously, the concept of ‘sustainability’ is

omnipresent in current policies. The so-called‘integrated approach’ (interpreted in variousways) is another term that is often foundin urban mobility plans. The terms ‘Smart

City’, ‘Smart mobility’29 as well as quality of lifeare also recurrent concepts when reviewing

29 The term ‘Smart mobility’ can cover many different

themes, however in practice, within urban mobility

policy the term is mainly used to depict thetechnological possibilities and measures that relate

to Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS).

Shutterstock 379057




urban mobility policies. All these conceptsmentioned above are often not defined veryprecisely. The terms are used interchangeablyfor several different planning practices.This manifold use of for example the term‘integrated approach’ raises questions,namely; what are the requirements forintegrated planning and, even moreimportant, how to establish integrated

sustainable urban mobility planning?

When looking at policy and specific policymeasures from across Europe that are beingdescribed in urban mobility plans, themesthat are recurring are cycling, priority for publictransport, shared mobility, infrastructural changes(co-existing transport modes), integrated land-use

planning, attractive city centres, campaigningand awareness raising to change mobility

behaviour, clean(er) vehicles, ITS and technologicalinnovation. These themes, defined on the basisof policy plan analysis of numerous Europeancities and urban areas, are described infurther detail in Part II of this KRA.

As regards urban mobility policy throughoutEurope, one sees many ambitious visions forthe longer term with very little connection

to the more specific shorter term planning.Targets for the long term are set and specified(such as ‘cycling forms 10% of the modalshare’, ‘ a doubling of public transport by2030’). However, the more practical policyplans (that span just several years) arenot very clear on how, and through whichspecific measures, these targets will be met.Specific roadmaps towards these targets

are scarce. In other words, there appearsto be a discrepancy between long termvisions or ambitions and the concrete policymeasures that are actually being taken. Activemonitoring and evaluation of policy lacks thecentral question: what works, and why?

The most relevant challenge thereforelies in identifying what cities and theirmunicipalities need in order to turn their

ambitions regarding sustainable urbanmobility into reality.

Establishing mobility systems that are moresustainable is a huge task for municipalities,and this challenge is further impeded bythe current economic and financial crises.A shift towards more sustainable urbanmobility is impossible without investments(in road infrastructure, public transport,

campaigns etc.). European cities are notsafeguarded from these crises and areexperiencing a severe impact on municipalbudgets and projects.30/31 A reduction in the(municipal) budgets evidently means lessmoney for investments in sustainability,and leads cities to postpone and downsize(mobility) projects32. The challenge caused bythe economic crisis in Europe is twofold; toobtain the same results with less financial

means, and to maintain commitmentstowards sustainable urban mobility in timesof economic crisis.33 Other difficulties also

30 http://www.eukn.org/E_library/Economy_

Knowledge_Employment/Urban_Economy/Urban_

Economy/URBACT_Cities_facing_the_crisis_final_

publication_now_available

31 URBACT Publication: Cities facing the Crisis –

Impact and Responses, available at http://urbact.

eu/?id=1529

32 Just to name one example, the London Cross River

Tram project is on hold due to funding constraints

33 ‘Maintain commitments’: Speech Vincent Leiner,DG MOVE on Civitas Results Workshop 13-09-2011,

Brussels

http://www.eukn.org/E_library/Economy_Knowledge_Employment/Urban_Economy/Urban_Economy/URBACT_Cities_facing_the_crisis_final_publication_now_available




http://urbact.eu/?id=1529











arise in relation to issues of governance dueto the polycentric structures that stem fromon-going urbanisation. As (functional) urbanareas no longer necessarily correspond withmunicipal borders, and people tend to travellonger distances (for example, to commutefrom home to work), then how can wedetermine on which scale mobility planningis most effective?

The policy and specific measures ofthe European cities can be classified infive main themes; urban space & scale,regulation & pricing, lifestyle & behaviour,ITS & technology and Governance. Theseare the separate themes of this Knowledgeand Research Agenda, but should allsimultaneously be taken into accountwhen aspiring to take an integrated

approach towards urban mobility policy.The reason they are being discussedseparately in this KRA is to be able tomake more comprehensible comparisons.Obviously, these themes do not all getequal consideration in urban mobilitypolicies. Generally speaking, infrastructuralinterventions dominate these policies. Dueto the - usually - high costs, these policymeasures are specifically vulnerable to budget

restraints. Next to these, campaigning andpromoting the use of more sustainable modesof transport (aimed at citizens, businesses,visitors) are also rather popular policymeasures/tools. Due to lack of technologicalknowledge (and budget restraints) andpolitical sensitivity, disincentives andtechnology are underexposed in the mobilitypolicy plans of European cities.

Urban Space & Scale – A shift of priority inurban transport modes – Ending ‘the loveaffair with the car’Due to the immense growth in car use,developments in the second half of the 20th century have led to a situation in whichthe private car dominates other modes oftransport both in the city and in its mobilitypolicies. This situation leads to problems

regarding congestion, parking spaces, airquality, pollutant emissions, safety andquality of life in general. However, whenlooking at the urban mobility plans acrossEurope, this situation should soon change.By means of infrastructural measures (butalso through campaigns and the promotionof other – more sustainable - modes oftransport, and occasionally regulation andpricing mechanisms), municipalities try to

change the existing dominance of the car intoa new position so that all mobility modes arepresent in the urban environment on a moreequal footing. Next to these, there are effortsto promote the use of cleaner vehicles andcome to a cleaner public transport fleet. Thesedevelopments should be seen in combinationwith improvements in the field of – especially- public transportation and campaignsaimed at awareness raising and behavioural

change. How can cities apply infrastructuralmeasures in order to promote the use of moresustainable modes such as public transport,cycling and walking? And what role can -integrated - land use planning play regardingmobility patterns and behaviour?




Regulation & Pricing- A balance between‘Carrots’ and ‘Sticks’Through ‘regulation and pricing’, - municipal- authorities have a powerful tool to reduce

unwanted modes of transport and stimulatethe use of alternative mobility. The topic isusually politically sensitive. Besides, there is alack of clarity on which level these measuresshould best be decided on. Many urbanauthorities are hesitant to make bold politicalchoices (such as the introduction of someform of road pricing), of which is believedthey will not be accepted by the local people(also electorate) and other stakeholders.

Most regulatory measures therefore concernstricter parking policy. In urban mobilitypolicy in Europe, there are clearly more

incentives (i.e. promotion of alternativemodes of transport) than disincentives(reduction of car use through regulatoryand fiscal measures). In other words, there

is no balance between ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’.How can urban municipalities ensure abetter balance between these two? Andwhat is needed in order to convince citiesthat measures of regulation and pricing arean essential part of truly committed urbanmobility policy?

Lifestyle & Behaviour – Promotionalcampaigning alone is never enough

Promoting alternative modes of transport andsustainable mobility behaviour appears tobe a popular tool throughout Europe. These

Cyclo Meeting in Slovenia




‘soft measures’, e.g. promotional campaignsfor cycling, information about alternativemodes of transport by targeted personalisedmarketing and setting up company mobilityplans, are currently widely used, and manysuccesses advertised. However, cities strugglewith the fact that for this type of policyinstruments it is difficult to measure exactresults.

An important benefit of these measures aretheir low costs compared to for exampleinfrastructural measures. However, it hasproved vital that, next to promotion andcampaigning, corresponding infrastructuraland planning measures need to beimplemented as well. To what extent arecities capable of influencing the mobilitybehaviour of their citizens, visitors and

companies?

ITS & Technology – Technologicalinnovation – How can cities contribute?Cities can take advantage of modern

technology in urban mobility policy. However,this seems to be a difficult topic for urbanmunicipalities; urban authorities sometimeslack the specific technical knowledgerequired, lack financial means or do not see

themselves as the authority responsible fortechnological innovation. This is shown forexample when looking at the introduction ofgreener vehicles, either electric or runningon clean fuels. Are these local or nationalconcerns, or perhaps the responsibility oftransport providers? There are many so calleddemonstration or pilot projects addressinggreen vehicles, and as it is one of the pointsthe European Union focuses on, there is quite

some European funding available (throughfor example CIVITAS34 and the GreenCarInitiative35). The problems arise when one

looks at the next steps that should result(complete overhaul of fleet or rolling stock,large investments) from this large amountof pilot projects with green fuels and greenvehicles. The questions that come up are:When is a good time to overhaul stock?Which kind of green fuel will be ‘the best fuel’in the future? For now, it does not seem thatcities dare to make large investments and

stick to pilot projects instead.

So, if virtually all cities and urban areas inEurope have (in their policies) the ambitionto strive for more sustainable urban mobility,with clear visions and ambitions, then whyis this transformation not yet (speedily)taking place? In order for European cities tobe able transform into the accessible, green,clean, liveable and prosperous nodes they

envision, these visions and ambitions shouldbe translated into practical measures andconcrete actions.

Instead of ‘What needs to be changed/done?’,the more important question for cities inEurope seems to be ‘How should this changetowards sustainable urban mobility besuccessfully implemented?’

34 http://www.civitas.eu

35 http://www.green-cars-initiative.eu/public /

http://www.civitas.eu/

http://www.green-cars-initiative.eu/public


http://www.civitas.eu/




Sustainable Urban Transport Research:

a State of the Art Review

By Dominic Stead, Delft University of Technology

3 Sustainable Urban Transport

3.1 Introduction – the evolvingresearch agenda of sustainableurban transport

The role of urban transport policy in

contributing to sustainable development hasbeen on the political and academic agendafor more than two decades. Soon after thepublication of the Brundtland Report in 1987,various calls emerged from both policy andresearch literature for more sustainableapproaches to urban transport policy (or‘sustainable urban mobility’). The early 1990ssaw a great increase in activity on the subject.In Europe, notable examples included the

OECD-ECMT inquiry into urban travel andsustainable development (set up in 1991 andwhich produced various reports during the1990s36), and the European White Paper onTransport (published in 1992), which calledfor a new approach to transport policy givinggreater prominence to issues of natural resourcedepletion and environmental degradation. Atthe interface between transport policy-makingand academic research, an early example of

activity on sustainable transport policy wasthe commission and publication of a collectionof essays from a group of transport analysts(appointed by the UK’s then shadow transportminister John Prescott and edited by Roberts etal, 1992) with the brief of providing a blueprintfor a new approach to more sustainabletransport policy. In general, transport policy(and research) was ‘greened’ during the course

of the 1990s or, in other words, given a moreenvironmental (and often ecological) rationale.However, this is not to say that the importanceof the economic and social rationales oftransport were downgraded – in many cases

the new rationale was simply added alongsidethese other rationales. Over the last decade orso, greater attention in policy and research hasbeen focused on reconciling these rationalesand on ways of achieving greater integrationand synergy between them.Starting in the early 1990s and continuing to thepresent day, various authors have attemptedto define the research agenda associatedwith transport and sustainable development.

Despite being produced at different times,for different reasons, and across differentdisciplines and continents, many key themesremain surprisingly constant. An attempt tosynthesise and classify the main researchthemes from a selected number of key texts ispresented in Figure 1. Five key research themesfor sustainable urban transport have beendistinguished in the classification scheme usinga combination of literature review (summarised

below) and expert opinion (via XX stakeholderworkshops organised by the EuropeanMetropolitan Institute – see Appendix 1):1 ICT and vehicle technology;2 Urban space and scale;3 Lifestyle and behaviour;4 Regulation and pricing; and5 Institutions and governance.

36 See for example OECD-ECMT (1995).




H e n s h e r

1 9 9 3

I C T a

n d

v e h i c l e

t e c h n o l o g y

U r b a

n

s p a c e

s c a l e

L i f e s

t y l e

a n d b e h a

v i o u r

R e g u

l a t i o n

a n d p r i c i n g

I n s t i t u t i o n s

a n d g o v e

r n a n c e

K n o w l e s

1 9 9 3 *

B a n i s t e r

e t a l 2 0 0 0 *

K e n n e d y

e t a l 2 0 0 5

G o l d m a n &

G o r h a m 2

0 0 6 *

N i j k a m p

2

0 0 6

I n f o r m a t i o n

t e c h n o l o g y

s y s t e m s

I m p r o v e m e n t s

i n v e h i c l e

f u e l

e f fi e n c y #

I n t e l l i g e n

s y s t e m

m a n a g e m e n t

L i v e a b i l i t y

N e w

m o b i l i t y

G l o b a l i s a t i o n ,

e c o n o m y a n d

t r a d e #

I n s t i t u t i o n s ,

r e g u l a t i o n s

a n d m a r k e t s

i n t r a n s -

p o r t a t i o n

S o c i e t y ,

b e h a v i o u r a n d

p u

b l i c / p r i v a t e

t r a n s p o r t

E n

v i r o n m e n t ,

s a f e t y , h e a l t h ,

l a n d u s e a n d

c

o n g e s t i o n

I C T ,

i

n n o v a t i o n

a n d t h e

t r a n s p o r t

s y s t e m

E f f e c t i v e

g o v e r n a n c e

o f

l a n d u s e a n d

t r a n s p o r t a t i o

n

F a i r , e f fi c i e n t ,

s t a b l e

f u n d i n g

N e i g h b o u r -

h o o d

d e s i g n

S t r a t e g i c

t r a n s p o r t

i n f r a -

s t r u c t u r e #

T e l e c o m -

m u n i -

c a t i o n s a n d

t e c h n o l o g y

I n f r a s t r u c -

t u r e / m o d e

m a n a g e m e n t

I n f o r m a t i o n /

p u b l i c

a w a r e n e s s

G e n e r a l

e c o n o m i c

p o l i c i e s

B e h a v i o u r a l

p a t t e r n s

P r i c i n g /

t a x a t i o n

L a n d u s e

p l a n n i n g

T e c h n i c a l

i m p r o v e -

m e n t s

M a r k e t i z a t i o n

a n d

d e m o c r a t i c

r e f o r m #

D e r e g u l a t i o n

a n d

p r i v a t i s a t i o n #

T r a n s p o r t

i n f r a s t r u c t u r e

p r o j e c t s #

T e c h n o l o g i c a l

i n n o v a t i o n a n d

t e l e c o m m u n i -

c a t i o n #

R o a d

p r i c i n g

T r a n s p o r t

a n d l o c a t i o n

p r i c e s # S

p a t i a l

i n c e n t i v e s f o r

p u b l i c

t r a n s p o r t #

N o t e s

–

s o m e a d d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h / p o l i c y t h e m e s i d e n t i fi e d b y t h r e e a u t h o r s ( m a r k e d w i t h * ) h a

v e b e e n o m i t t e d f r o m t

h e d i a g r a m ( s e e t e

x t ) .

–

t h e n a m e s o f s o m e r e s e a r c h / p o l i c y t h e m e s h a v e b e e n s l i g h t l y m o d i fi e d ( m a r k e d w i t h # ) .

–

m a n

y r e s e a r c h / p o l i c y t h e m e s i d e n t i fi e d i n t h e s e k e y t e x t s a r e c r o s s - c u t t i n g i n n a t u r e a

n d t h i s i s t o s o m e e x t e n t r e fl e c t e d b y c e r

t a i n t h e m e s b e i n g p l a c e d i n b e t w e e n c a t e g o r i e s ( a l t h o u g h

t h i s

a p p r o a c h d o e s n o t a l w a y s c a p t u r e t h e t r u

e c r o s s - c u t t i n g n a t u r e o f s o m e t h e m e s ) .

–

t h e ‘

i n s t i t u t i o n s a n d g o v e r n a n c e ’ t h e m e i s c r o s s - c u t t i n g a n d i s o f t e n i m p l i c i t i n d i s c u s

s i o n s a b o u t o t h e r t h e m e s .

F i g u r e

2

C l a s s i fi c a t i o n o f k e y r e s e a r c h t h e m e s i n k e y t e x t s c o n c e r n i n g s u s t a i n a

b l e t r a n s p o r t




Clearly, the process of classification involveda degree of interpretation in order to fit theideas of others into Figure 1. Numerousalternative interpretations are of coursepossible, especially since some issuesidentified by other authors cut acrossseveral of the themes presented in theclassification scheme in Figure 1. Beforeexamining the nature and content of these

five research themes in more detail, a shortdescription is provided for each of the sixkey texts identified in Figure 1. As the briefdescriptions highlight, the starting points,methods and nature of the papers differquite substantially but a number of commonthemes emerge.

3.2 Identifying key research themes

The first paper identified in Figure 1 is byDavid Hensher, an economist by backgroundbased at the University of Sydney, focuseson how society might progress towardan economically and environmentallysustainable future. As such, it is moreoriented towards key implementationissues than to research themes. The workpresented in this paper was funded by theAustralian Research Council as well as the

Australian National Roads and MotoristsAssociation (NRMA) and the AustralianCouncil of Social Service. Hensher identifiesfive major issues: (i) land use, pricingand individual behaviour; (ii) workplacelocation, transport capacity and modalshares; (iii) public transport and thepotential impact of road pricing; (iv) urbandispersal, commuting, traffic congestion andinformation technology; and (v) alternative

fuels. While the paper is primarily apersonal position statement by Hensheron the issue of sustainable mobility, it was

37 Evidence for these influences can be found in

Hensher’s acknowledgements.

clearly also informed by expert opinions(through a NRMA workshop for example)and inputs from peers.37

The second paper by Richard Knowles, aBritish geographer based at the Universityof Salford, takes the form of an editorialessay that appeared in the first issue ofthe Journal of Transport Geography in 1993

(which Knowles continues to edit). Knowlesidentified nine research themes in hispaper with the primary aim of ‘stimulatingthought and continuing debate abouttransport geography’s development’ (p.4)in order to set the scene for the journal’scontent. His research themes representa collation of views from the journal’seditorial board as well as a further 40transport geographers from across the world

on important contemporary research issues(in the early 1990s) in transport geography.The focus of these themes is thus verymuch wider than sustainable urbantransport, and it must be acknowledged thata number of research themes that Knowlesproposed in his editorial do not fit into theclassification scheme in Figure 1 – most ofthese themes relate to various impacts oftransport (including social, environmental

and energy-related issues). Nevertheless,several of Knowles’ research themes doclosely match the main themes presented inFigure 1.

A book on European transport policy andsustainable mobility from 2000, authored byDavid Banister (a British geographer based atthe University of Oxford) and six researchers




from Germany, Sweden, the Netherlandsand the UK, provides a third source of keyresearch themes for sustainable transport.The book is based on the outcomes of aninternational research project (POSSUM –Policy Scenarios for Sustainable Mobility)funded by the European Commissionbetween 1996 and 1998 under the FourthFramework Strategic Research Programme.

While the book’s authors do not identifyresearch themes as such, they do presenta wide-ranging set of policy measures (andalso packages of policies) that might helpto promote a more sustainable transportsystem. They identify nine generic types ofpolicies38, based on a review and synthesisof literature on the subject, closely following(and extending) the classification of policymeasures set out in the 1995 OECD-ECMT

report on urban travel and sustainabledevelopment (OECD-ECMT, 1995). Becausetheir main focus is on policy measures,none of Banister et al’s main themesdirectly address institutions and governance(although all of their themes clearly havedirect implications for both institutions andgovernance).

Published in 2005, the fourth paper

identified in Figure 1 was authored byChristopher Kennedy (an engineer andeconomist by background) together withcolleagues from the University of Toronto

in Canada. Based primarily on a reviewand synthesis of literature, Kennedy andhis colleagues identify four essentialcomponents (or ‘pillars’) for moving towardssustainable urban transportation. Theirfour pillars comprise: (i) effective bodiesfor integrated land-use transportationplanning; (ii) fair, efficient and stable fundingmechanisms; (iii) strategic investments in

major infrastructure; and (iv) local design.The content of the paper is structuredaround key principles or foundationsfor implementing sustainable transportpolicy (rather than key research themes orpriorities). However, the authors explicitlyconsider the research implications of eachof their pillars in the paper: they formulatekey questions and identify areas for futureresearch for each of the four pillars. The

issues of land use and governance emergeas being particularly important in theirdiscussion of these four pillars.

The fifth paper is by Todd Goldman andRoger Gorham, both from the United Statesand both with a background in urban andregional planning. Published in 2005, theirpaper sets out ‘four emerging clusters ofpractice’ (p.271). These clusters are not

intended to be a comprehensive groupingof sustainability policies but rather anindication of key areas of innovation that arebeginning to appear in sustainable transportpolicy and practice. There is considerableoverlap between the four clusters and anumber of policy issues are omitted, suchas fuel and vehicle technology strategies(as the authors themselves recognise). Thefirst cluster, ‘New Mobility’, addresses how

individuals plan their daily activities andconcerns economic and psychological factorsshaping mode choice and vehicle ownership

38 These nine types of policies comprise: land

use planning; pricing/taxation; infrastructure/

mode management; technical improvements;

telecommunications and technology; behavioural

patterns; freight management (not shown in theclassification scheme in Figure 1); information and

public awareness; and general economic policies.




decisions. Their second cluster ‘City logistics’(not shown in the classification scheme inFigure 1) is concerned with business modelsfor more sustainable urban delivery systems.The ‘Intelligent System Management’, thethird cluster, addresses the relationshipbetween infrastructure and the publicinstitutions that operate it. Fourth, the‘Liveability’ cluster addresses how society

interacts with transportation systems. Incommon with the papers by Hensher andBanister et al (see above), this paper is moreheavily oriented towards identifying keyimplementation issues rather than researchthemes. Nevertheless, these implementationissues provide a useful additional meansof considering the research challengesand issues connected to sustainable urbandevelopment. Due to their highly cross-

cutting nature, these four clusters areperhaps the most difficult to classify andposition in Figure 1.

Sixth is the paper, authored by Peter Nijkamp,a Dutch econometrist from Amsterdam’s FreeUniversity, which sets out a transport policyresearch agenda that was generated throughfocus groups involving groups of experts fromtwo closely linked research networks from

Europe and North America.39

The activitiesof the focus groups were organised aroundfive key themes: (i) globalisation, e-economyand trade; (ii) ICT, innovation and thetransport system; (iii) society, behaviour andprivate/public transport; (iv) environment,safety, health, land use and congestion; and(v) institutions, regulations and marketsin transportation. Of all the six key textsdescribed above, the main research themes

identified by Nijkamp probably bear theclosest resemblance to the classificationsystem adopted in Figure 1.

Considering the variety of approaches anddisciplines covered by the six key textsidentified in Figure 1, there is a remarkableamount of agreement and correspondenceon key themes. There are of course certainthemes that feature in some texts but not inothers, and a few themes that were omittedfrom the classification scheme illustrated inFigure 1. In general however most themes

could be placed in the Figure with a fewexceptions (e.g. the themes of urban freightwhich appears in papers by Banister et al,2000 and Goldman and Gorham, 2006).

The content of the six key texts discussedabove not only help to identify generalresearch themes associated with sustainableurban transport (presented in Figure 1), thesetexts also provide a way of discerning a

variety of research sub-themes. A review ofthe content of these six texts (in combinationwith stakeholder workshops organised bythe European Metropolitan Institute – seeAppendix 1) has helped to compile anindicative list of sub-themes for research onsustainable urban development, which can befound in Table 2. Many of these sub-themesare discussed in more detail in the positionpapers in Part II of this volume. What follows

in the text immediately below is an overviewof recommended starting points for readingon each of the six research themes.

39 The two networks are the EU-funded STELLA

thematic network (Sustainable Transport in Europe

and Links and Liaisons with America) and the USNational Science Foundation funded STAR network

(Sustainable Transportation Analysis and Research).




3.3 ICT and vehicle technology

Technology in its various forms has long beena central concern in debates about solutionsto transport problems (Banister, 2002).According to Banister & Stead (2004), threebasic arguments have been used to categorisethe possible impacts of ICT (Information andcommunications technologies) on transport:

– stimulation of more travel as newopportunities become available;– substitution for travel as activities can

now be carried out remotely rather than bytravel;

– modification of travel as the two elementscombine to change the ways in whichactivities are carried out.

Banister & Stead’s view is that this is a

rather simplistic conceptualisation of theimpacts of new technologies on transportas it does not attempt to understand howtechnologies develop and shape society(Lyons, 2002). Many early studies seemedto suggest a huge potential for change butin practice the changes were often far lessobvious and more subtle. Moreover, even ifthere are reductions in one set of transportrelated activities (e.g. the journey to work),

there may be compensating increases atother times, for other types of travel (e.g. forshopping and social activities) or for otherusers (which has strong links to the ‘reboundeffect’ described by Binswanger, 2001). Forexample, ICT may reduce the number of journeys to work (for certain professions atleast) but at the same time may increase thelength of journeys (where ICT allows work tobe done during the journey): an example of

substitution and stimulation effects takingplace simultaneously (see also Mokhtarian,2003).

In their review of the impacts of ICT ontransport, Banister & Stead (2004) set outthree key unresolved questions concerningthe future of transport demand and analysis,which are summarised below:1 The limits to travel. In the past, every

technological innovation has acted toincrease that demand rather than reduceit. The question here is whether ICT acts

as a brake or an accelerator in this process.The evidence cited in this paper suggeststhat there is substantial scope for reducingsome types of (less valued) travel demand,like the journey to work, but equally it mayencourage other (higher valued) longerdistance travel, like leisure travel. ICTs ontheir own cannot change the direction ofcurrent trends towards a less sustainabletransport system.

2 Travel as a derived demand. The traditionalview that travel is only undertaken becauseof the benefits derived at the destinationbeing higher than the associated costs is nolonger generally applicable. For example,substantial amounts of leisure travel areundertaken for its own sake and the activityof travelling is valued positively. Thisconclusion has enormous implications fortransport analysis as most conventional

analysis is based on the premise that traveldistances should be short and that traveltime should be minimised.

3 The latent demand for transport. The balancebetween substitutive and complementaryeffects of ICT use with respect to transporthas been one of the main issues of debateover the past decade, and is based ondifferent assumptions regarding the roleof latent demand. If distance working or

any other ICT-based activity leads to thesubstitution of a trip, it is possible thatadditional trips will be made by others.




Table 2 Key research themes for sustainable urban transport and indicative sub-themes

Key research themes Indicative sub-themes

ICT and vehicle technology • Integrated travel planning services/systems.• Real-time traveller information.• Route guidance and optimisation systems (including parking availability).• Dynamic road traffic signalling.• Dynamic road pricing.• Alternative fuels.

Urban space and scale •

Density, diversity and design of the built environment.• Development around public transport nodes (transit-oriented development).• Car free zones.• Cycling and walking infrastructure/networks/priority.• Local services and facilities.• Street layout/traffic calming.• Road capacity.• Parking provision and standards.• Segregated public transport routes.• Park & ride facilities.

Lifestyle and behaviour • Demographic change.• Urban growth/decline.• Campaigns to promote more sustainable transport modes.• Campaigns to promote awareness about public transport services.• Car sharing and hire schemes.• Bike sharing and hire schemes.• Personal mobility plans.

Regulation and pricing • Planning regulations (single use, mixed use, density).• Parking tariffs/restrictions/control.• Entry prohibitions/access control/environmental zones.• Priorities for bus, tram and high occupancy vehicles (HOVs).• Vehicle speed limits.• Low emission zones.

• Fare integration and schedule coordination.• Regulations and subsidies for cleaner vehicles.

Institutions and governance • Decentralisation, privatisation and deregulation.• Powers and responsibilities.• Benchmarking.• Policy indicators.• Assessment of plans and programmes.• Policy packaging.• Policy experimentation.• Visioning/envisioning.




Andreev et al (2010) provide a more recentreview of the major direct impacts of ICTon personal activities and travel, either inthe form of substitution, complementarity,modification or neutrality (where ICTuse does not lead to changes in travel).Their review considers the impacts of fourareas of teleactivities (telecommuting,teleconferencing, teleshopping teleservices

and teleleisure) on travel. In the case oftelecommuting, Andreev et al’s conclusionis that it can contribute to reduction of thevarious travel characteristics (e.g. passengerkilometres, vehicle kilometres, emissions,number of commuting trips) in the shortterm. In the long term, however, the impactsof telecommuting are still disputed. As forteleshopping, despite expectations that itcould potentiality substitute traditional

shopping, the majority of studies reviewedby Andreev et al indicate that teleshoppingis more likely to be complementarity totraditional shopping rather than replacingit. On the other hand, various studies onmaintenance teleactivities (e.g. telebanking,telemedicine) indicate substitution effects.Meanwhile, studies suggest that teleleisure(often involving recreation at home ratherthan going elsewhere) does not result in

significant travel substitution, and somestudies indicate that teleleisure may have acomplementary impact. According to Andreevet al’s review, the impacts of teleleisureremain the most understudied issue of allteleactivities.

The possible contribution of differentvehicle technologies to sustainable urbandevelopment is considered in a 2009 joint

report of the Netherlands EnvironmentalAssessment Agency and the StockholmResilience Centre. It reports that full-electric

vehicles and hydrogen-powered fuel-cellvehicles are two of the most promisingtechnological options for decarbonisingpassenger road transport. However, neitherelectricity nor hydrogen is well suited forlong-distance road freight transport becauseof storage capacity. In addition, hydrogen as jet fuel will require total aircraft redesign andlarge changes in infrastructure. The report

indicates that technology alone will not besufficient to achieve a low carbon transportsystem by 2050. Low-carbon transport alsorequires changes in behaviour, which canbe influenced through various land use,regulatory, pricing, education and awarenessmechanisms (see below).

3.4 Urban space and scale

The search for sustainable urban transportpolicies has contributed to increasingattention being paid to land use andurban form and how this might help toreduce the need to travel. Early studies ofthe relationships between land use andtravel behaviour often assumed a simplesort of physical determinism, where thebuilt environment alone was thought toshape individual action and behaviour. The

influences of socio-economic factors ontravel behaviour were often not considered inthese early studies. Later on, acknowledgingthat society is not spatially homogenous(i.e. different areas have different land-usepatterns and are home to different sorts ofpeople), studies began to consider the three-way relationships between land-use patterns,the socio-economic profile of individualsand their travel patterns. More recently still,

investigation in this field also attempts toincorporate issues of lifestyles and attitudes,related both to the socio-economic profile




of individuals and also to the choicesindividuals make about their residentiallocation and mode of transport.

The oil crises of the 1970s were a key reasonfor studying the relationships between land-use and travel behaviour during the 1970sand 1980s. A central concern was how toimprove energy efficiency and reduce oil

dependence through a variety of means,including the built environment. Earlystudies were often more theoretical thanempirical (complex multivariate analyses oftravel survey data were practically beyondthe computing capability of the time) andthe focus was primarily on transport-relatedenergy use (e.g. Hillman and Whalley, 1983;Owens, 1986; Rickaby, 1987). Much of this firstwave of studies focused on the connection

between density and public transport use(Handy et al, 2005). A study by Pushkarev andZupan (1977) for example claimed that publictransport use could be increased throughpolices that increase densities. In 1989, thesimple bivariate analysis by Newman andKenworthy correlating urban densities andtransport energy consumption in a sampleof international cities sparked heated debatein the research field and helped give rise

to a range of more sophisticated studies inthe 1990s to try to either confirm or contestNewman and Kenworthy’s thesis that urbandensity is the key determinant of transportenergy consumption.

Critics of Newman and Kenworthy’s studyidentified various weaknesses of theapproach (see for example Mindali et al., 2004;Troy, 1992), such as the lack of multivariate

analyses to take account of other differencesbetween the cities (e.g. socio-economicdifferences of inhabitants in these cities,

urban land-use and infrastructure differencesand differences in national and sub-nationalpolicies and rules), the lack of consistency ofdata from the different cities (both in termsof reliability and geographical coverage) andthe lack of evidence on causality (correlationprovides no proof of causality). As a result,a wave of studies were carried out andreported in the 1990s that examined the

effect of different characteristics of the builtenvironment (not just urban density but alsosettlement size, land-use mix, proximity tomain transport networks, street patterns andso on) on transport energy consumption ata more disaggregated level (for a review, seefor example Stead and Marshall, 2001). Otherstudies in the 1990s chose to look beyondtransport energy consumption and examinethe links between urban form (according to

various characteristics) and personal traveldistance, frequency and mode choice (Steadand Marshall, 2001).

In the early 1990s, these studies often lackeda strong socio-economic dimension: the mainfocus was still on trying to explain differencesin travel behaviour (measured accordingto various criteria) in terms of urban form(also measured according to various criteria).

By the mid-1990s, however, an increasingamount of research was being carried outand reported that took account of the linksbetween urban form, the characteristics ofindividuals and their travel behaviour. Themid-1990s marked the approximate pointat which research started to try to reconciletheories of physical determinism withideas from social and cultural geographyon socio-spatial patterns of norms, habits

and actions. According to various reviewarticles, the number of studies incorporatingthese dimensions into research experienced




rapid growth in the 1990s (see for exampleBoarnet and Crane, 2001; Ewing and Cervero,2001). Sorting out the extent to which socio-economic characteristics and characteristicsof the built environment impact travelbehaviour is a common challenge in thesestudies. Ewing and Cervero (2001), after one ofthe most thorough reviews of studies, come tothe conclusion that the built environment has

a greater impact on journey distances thanthe number of journeys people make, and thechoice of transport mode depends as muchon socio-economic characteristics as urbanform. In other words, socio-economic factorscan help to explain some of the observeddifferences in travel behaviour within cities(and between cities): urban form is certainlynot the sole determinant of travel behaviour.

www.eltis.org




However, urban form does seem to have a roleto play in shaping individual travel patterns,particularly with regard to journey distances,according to the conclusions of many of thesestudies.

By around 2000, the debate about the linksbetween urban form and travel behaviourstarted to shift to the issue of causality

(Handy et al., 2005). Understanding the roleof self-selection formed a new focus forresearch in this field. According to Handy etal (2005), it presents the key to understandingthe causal relationship between the builtenvironment and travel behaviour. A numberof possible models have been identified inwhich attitudes and opinions can be linkedto urban form and travel behaviour (Caoet al, 2009). For example, it is possible that

attitudes are primary, where preferencesfor particular types of neighbourhood ortransport modes influence both travel choicesand the type of residential location andperhaps also their choice of employer (wherethe employer is located and how easily itcan be reached by certain modes). On theother hand, it could be that attitudes areintervening, whereby a person’s residential(or workplace) environment influences his

or her attitudes and ideas (e.g. throughneighbours or colleagues) and these in turnexert an influence on certain travel choicesand behaviour. Or it could be that attitudesare secondary (or irrelevant), where urbanform influences travel choices and behaviourmore directly (or alternatively where travelbehaviour influences location choices).

Since 2000, a few studies have begun

to address the issue of self-selection byaccounting for preferences and attitudes.Their conclusions are varied. Studies by

Handy and Clifton (2001) and Bagley andMokhtarian (2002) for example suggest thatthe associations between travel behaviourand neighbourhood characteristics are largelyexplained by self-selection (residents withcertain attitudes choosing to live in certainkinds of neighbourhoods). On the otherhand, Schwanen and Mokhtarian (2005),using a different methodology, report that

urban form does affect travel behaviour evenwhen attitudes are taken into account. Næss(2009) argues that if households self-selectinto areas that meet their travel preferences,it is self-evident that urban form mattersand exerts an influence on travel behaviour(which is of course closely linked to thetheme of lifestyles and behaviour – seebelow). Like Schwanen and Mokhtarian(2005), Næss also contends that residential

location (urban form) exerts considerableinfluence on the choice of transport mode,even after self-selection is taken into account.In fact, he concludes that the impact ofurban structure on travel behaviour mayoften be underestimated in many studiesthat contain a large number of variables onattitudes, preferences and socio-economiccharacteristics.

On the question of whether urban form hasa distinct influence on travel choices, evenafter accounting for self-selection, currentempirical evidence seems to be affirmative.According to Cao et al (2009), virtually everyquantitative study that they reviewed, evenafter controlling for self-selection, revealedsome significant influence of urban form ontravel behaviour, both journey distance andnumber of journeys (although their opinion is

that the relative contribution of urban formis often relatively small compared to otherfactors such as socio-demographic variables).




On the question whether the influence ofurban form diminishes once residential self-selection is taken into account, the answeris also often affirmative (although someauthors disagree – see for example Næss,2009). It must be noted however that studieson self-selection are still in their infancy andthat understanding more about the causalrelationships between attitudes, urban

form and travel behaviour requires complexexperimental design that has not yet beenextensively examined and reported.

3.5 Lifestyle and behaviour

It has long been recognised that socio-economic characteristics of individuals, suchas gender, age, employment status, incomeand so on, influence travel choices and

patterns. What is more recent is attentionto individual lifestyles and the role theycan play in influencing travel choices.Behind this research is the realisation that,even accounting for numerous social andeconomic differences, individual travelbehaviour is still extremely varied, andthat individual’s attitudes and willingnessto change are also highly diverse (Anable,2005). As Kitamura (2009) recognises,

the notion of lifestyles has a variety ofinterpretations, touching on issues relatedto life-cycles (stages of life), time-use indaily life (the amount of time spent doingdifferent activities) as well as values andattitudes, and each of these issues canhave a significant influence on individualtravel choices and patterns (see also thecontribution by Goodwin later in thisvolume).

It is becoming widely recognised thatattempts to address unsustainable patterns

of travel require a detailed understanding oftravel behaviour and the reasons for choosingone mode of transport over another (Anable,2005). It is also becoming increasinglyapparent that rational, instrumentalarguments (and policy measures) may beinsufficient to deliver radical changes intravel behaviour. A variety of ‘soft’ approachesaimed at promoting travel behaviour

change are being increasingly advocatedand used (Table 3). According to Cairns etal (2008), the word ‘soft’ was originally usedto distinguish these approaches from ‘hard’measures (such as physical improvementsto transport infrastructure or operations,traffic engineering, control of road spaceand changes in price), although some softfactors do include elements of this nature(e.g. workplace travel plans often including

parking restrictions). Soft also refers to thenature of the traveller response since theseapproaches often address psychologicalmotivations for travel choice as well aseconomic ones. In general, soft approachesplace more emphasis on management andmarketing activities rather than operationsand investment (ibid). As is apparent fromTable 3, some soft approaches aimed atchanging behaviour are closely linked to

ICT measures (in the case of teleworking,teleconferencing and home shopping forexample). The relationships between lifestyle,behaviour and travel choices are also veryclosely linked to research on urban form andtravel patterns (discussed above), especiallyin relation to issues of residential andoccupational self-selection. Clearly, all of thedifferent types of soft interventions mighthave different impacts on different groups

of individuals, dependent on socio-economicand lifestyle characteristics.




Table 3 Ten examples of ‘soft’ approaches aimed at promoting travel behaviour change.

1 Workplace travel plans Measures are implemented mainly by employers to encourage and enableemployees to travel to work more sustainably.

2 School travel plans Measures are introduced at an individual school to encourage and enablechildren to travel to school more sustainably.

3 Personalized travelplanning

Individuals are offered information carefully tailored to their personal andlocational circumstances to encourage and enable them to travel moresustainably

4 Public transportinformation and marketing

Public transport information and publicity is produced and marketed,including advertising campaigns, information in more accessible formatsand simplified ticketing schemes.

5 Travel education andawareness campaigns

Various media are used to try to improve public awareness about differenttransport choices and their impacts, including changing personalbehaviour

6 Car clubs Car clubs provide subscribers with shared access to vehicles in theirneighbourhood and provide an alternative to individual car ownership.

7 Car sharing schemes Car sharing schemes provide ways of assisting individuals to share vehiclesfor particular journeys (also known as ‘car-pooling’ or ‘ride sharing’ in other

countries).

8 Teleworking Employers encourage employees to adopt a range of remote workingpractices, including working at home or in another location for some or allof the time.

9 Teleconferencing Telecommunications are used to facilitate communication that mightotherwise have involved travel and face-to-face contact.

10 Home shopping Customers purchase goods which are subsequently delivered directly,rather than purchased in a store and transported home.

One factor closely related to lifestyles thathas recently caught the attention of severalresearchers is the importance of socialnetworks on individual activity patterns.Several studies have started to probe therelationships between individual travelpatterns and choices and social networks(e.g. Carrasco and Miller, 2006; Dugundji

and Walker, 2005; Miller and Roorda, 2003;Schwanen, 2008). The starting point of

these studies is the hypothesis that travelbehaviour cannot be understood by solelyexamining individual socio-economiccharacteristics such as age, gender or income,but that it is also necessary to consider socialnetworks (e.g. network composition andphysical distance between contacts) in orderto understand and explain how travel choices

vary between individuals.

Adapted from Cairns et al, 2008.




Psychological factors, including perceptions,identity, social norms and habits, are alsobecoming increasingly used to understandindividual travel choices. According to Anable(2005), research into travel choices in thepast has often overlooked the fact that thecombination of instrumental, situational andpsychological factors affecting travel choicewill differ in distinct ways for different groups

of people. Studies based on psychologicaltheories of attitude-behaviour relations(e.g. the theory of planned behaviour) havegenerally concluded that the choice oftravel mode is largely a reasoned decisionrelated to attitudes and values (Bamberg andSchmidt, 1998; Forward, 1998). On the otherhand, studies based on theories of habitualbehaviour suggest that individual travelchoices are often based on standard routines,

or ways of doing things, and do not frequentlyinvolve the deliberation of alternatives(Bamberg et al, 2003; Ronis et al, 1989;Verplanken et al, 1994). Evidence from thelatter body of work implies that influencingtravel behaviour involves substantiallymore than presenting a set of well-reasonedarguments: it also requires interventions thatchallenge and modify habits or routines (VanAcker et al, 2010).

In summary, travel choices do not occur ina vacuum but are built into a complex webof other choices on how people live, and theconstraints and conditions under which theymake those choices (as Goodwin concludeslater in this volume). The whole way ofthinking about travel and lifestyles thereforeneeds to be seen as a process of changeover time and not as a fixed state. When

considering issues of behaviour and lifestyle,and especially when considering how topromote more sustainable transport choices,

it is also essential to bear in mind that theopenness (and resistance) to change amongindividuals is certainly not homogenous. Thismeans that an intervention may fall on fallowground among certain groups of individualswhile other groups may be very receptiveto the same intervention. This impliesthat interventions need to consider and beresponsive to the motivations and constraints

of different groups of individuals (Anable,2005). Targeting certain groups (e.g. thosewilling to change) might sometimes lead tomore significant changes in travel choices intotal than a campaign of action across thatattempts to target a much wider audience.

3.6 Regulation and pricing

As Nash and Whitelegg recognise in their

contribution later in this volume, a hugeamount of research has been devoted tothe way in which ‘hard’ measures, such asregulation and pricing, have or could beimplemented in the transport sector in orderto reduce negative externalities on society(e.g. environmental pollution, damage to thenatural and built environment, transport-related fatalities and injuries, congestionof transport infrastructure) and thereby

promote more sustainable transport choices.Clearly, it is not just the regulation or pricingof transport use and operation that caninfluence the demand for transport: generalmacro-economic policies and regulations inother policy sectors also influence transportdemand (Stead and Banister, 2001). Santoset al (2010) distinguish between two types ofinstruments for addressing the externalitiesof transport (which they term command-and-

control and incentive-based instruments),which essentially relate to regulation andpricing respectively.




The first type of instruments, command-and-control policies, comprises governmentregulations that require consumers and

producers to change their behaviour. Thistype of policy instruments is very widelyused and examples include vehicle emissionand fuel standards and parking restrictions(Table 4). While these instruments oftenfail to achieve an efficient market outcomefrom an economic perspective, politicalconstraints often make these instrumentsthe preferred option in terms of feasibilityand effectiveness, especially since the cost

of implementing these instruments forgovernments is relatively small. The secondtype of instruments, incentive-based policies

(or pricing measures), creates new marketsor alters existing markets. Examples includeregistration, ownership, fuel, emissions,

usage taxes, and parking and congestioncharges (Table 4), many of which have beenimplemented widely across the world. Theyinclude the use of taxes and charges in orderto bridge the gap between private and thesocial costs and, in principle, can help tointernalise the external costs of transport. Byproviding economic incentives, these policiesare crucial instruments for influencingbehavioural change. Like command-and-

control instruments, incentive-basedinstruments are widely used in the transportsector because they are relatively cheap and

Table 4 Examples of regulatory and pricing instruments in the transport sector

1 Command-and-controlpolicies

• Fuel standards.• Vehicle standards.• Low emission zones.• Restrictions on vehicle circulation.• Restrictions on vehicle ownership.• Parking restrictions.

2a Incentive-based policies(quantity control)

Emissions trading

2b Incentive-based policies(fiscal policy instruments)

Taxes on vehicle usage, including:• emission taxes.• fuel taxes.• taxes on travel distance.• congestion charges.• parking charges.• distance-related insurance charges.

Incentives for the purchase and ownership of cleaner vehicles, suchas:• subsidies to efficient vehicles and feebates.• scrappage incentives.• Vehicle ownership and usage taxes.• Company cars and other incentives.• Revenue allocation.

Based on Santos et al (2010).




simple to implement. No attempt is madehere to synthesise the large body of researchon regulation and pricing to which Nash andWhitelegg refer (a recent review of a widerange of literature in the field can be foundin a paper by Santos et al, 2010). Instead, thediscussion on regulation and pricing focusesprimarily on emerging and/or unresolvedresearch questions.

According to Nash and Whitelegg, in theircontribution later in this volume, researchis relatively limited and less conclusive interms of the impacts of different sorts ofpricing schemes on urban (and regional)spatial development and on the wider urbaneconomy. Unresolved questions remain forexample concerning the impacts of roadpricing on urban decentralisation, sprawl

and/or job losses from existing urban centresand effects on the urban economy as a whole.Similar unresolved questions also apply tothe impacts of public transport pricing andparking policies. Other related issues havebeen raised by Greene and Wegener (1997)who point to various unanswered questionsconcerning the efficiency and equity ofpricing instruments and the acceptabilityof fundamental changes in the pricing

and financing of transport. They questionthe extent to which full social cost pricingis achievable in practice and whether itwill inherently lead to a more sustainabletransport system. They also question whetherthere are combinations of strategies that canachieve more sustainable patterns of mobilityif full social cost pricing is not practical (thecombination of strategies, or policy packages,is considered in more detail below). Other

unanswered questions, according to Greeneand Wegener (1997), concern the implicationsof full social cost pricing for the growth

of mobility, technological change and thefinancing of public transport.

Regulation and pricing instruments raise anumber of research questions related to socialequity and acceptance. For example, certainpricing instruments, such as congestionpricing, are often regressive (i.e. pose a greaterfinancial burden on the poor than the rich).

Other instruments or strategies for sustainablemobility (e.g. carbon neutral development)may raise questions of social justice (Anableet al, 2012). Much remains to be done tounderstand the equity as well as efficiencyimplications of alternative transport pricingstrategies. Although a number of studies haveexamined the benefits and costs of congestionand external pricing, the long-term impactson land-use and spatial structure are still not

very well understood. From the viewpoint ofurban sustainability, these issues are crucial.Many opportunities exist for further researchinto the public and political acceptance ofindividual policy instruments and packagesof measures, and strategies for increasingacceptance.

3.7 Governance

The dynamic nature of the governanceof transport makes it an evolving andcomplex field of inquiry. Moreover, thevaried nature of governance across differentcities, regions and states adds furthercomplexity and challenges of research andpractice in the area. Both literature andpractice indicate that there is substantialvariation in governance arrangements andpractices across Europe (and the world),

not only due to the fact that governmentsare constituted differently but also becausenon-governmental actors play different roles




in each country and have different levelsof influence on decision-making processes(Salomon et al, 1993; Loughlin, 2007). Thesedifferences imply substantial variety in thegovernance of transport between nations.As Marsden and May (2006) recognise,differences in governance arrangements,such as the distribution of responsibilitiesand funding, have a substantial impact

on the effectiveness of transport strategydevelopment and delivery. To date, however,understanding of the impacts of differentgovernance arrangements on transportstrategy development and delivery is limitedand substantial scope exists for much morework in this field.

Various authors also claim that substantialdifferences in policy-making cultures and

modes of operation exist between differentnations (Aspinwall, 1999; Button, 1998; Kerwer& Teutsch, 2001; Molle, 1990; Stevens, 2004).According to Aspinwall (1999), for example,national transport policy in countries suchas France and Germany is organised aroundprinciples of cohesion, security, employmentand public service whereas transport policyin countries such as the Netherlands and theUnited Kingdom is predominantly organised

around a liberal approach in which transport isconsidered to be a service to support industry.These differences illustrate that transportpolicies are not just a matter of choosing themost cost effective or efficient package ofinstruments to achieve goals, but that alsobasic societal values play a role (Stough andRietveld, 1997). These basic values have astrong impact on the political feasibility ofpolicy adoption. Further research into the

nature of these cultural and value differencesin transport policy formation, according toStough and Rietveld (1997), would provide

significantly improved insight into the genesisof cross-country differences in transportpolicy.

Exploring the ways in which social sciencemight contribute to research on climatechange energy and transport issues, Anableet al (2012) recently highlight governance as akey theme. They identify the need for research

in transport which captures the full extent ofgovernance processes, policy networks and thepolitics of infrastructure and place, and whichmoves beyond the view of policy-making as atask solely for public authorities and considersa wider set of actors at multiple geographicalscales, thereby more fully reflecting the notionof multilevel governance.

As Stead argues later in his position paper

in Part II of this agenda, it has long beenacknowledged that there can be benefits fromintroducing packages of policies rather thansingle measures. Effective policy packagesoften require complementary actions in othersectors: this critically entails maximizingsynergies between policies across differentsectors and/or different institutions whichrequires intersectoral and intergovernmentalapproaches (Geerlings et al, 2012). Substantial

scope exists for new research into how policypackages can increase political and publicacceptance of policies and generate synergiesbetween measures. Research on these issuesto date has only started to scratch the surface.

3.8 Conclusions

From the review of the academic literature,a number of common themes recur in many

reviews of sustainable transport. Theseinclude issues related to ICT and technology,land-use and infrastructure, lifestyle and

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/industry.These







behaviour, regulation and pricing, andinstitutions and governance. These fivethemes have featured in research (and alsopolicy) agendas for quite some time and arelikely to remain on future research agendasfor the foreseeable future. For each of thesethemes, there is substantial scope for pushingforward existing research boundaries relatedto sustainable urban transport. Various

cross-cutting issues are identified belowwhere there are significant opportunities toextend research in these five themes. Thecross-cutting issues identified here are by nomeans comprehensive but rather representan attempt to identify the more promising(and relatively under-researched) issues. Table5 identifies examples of research questionsaccording to each of these four areas and thefive research themes discussed in the paper

(ICT and vehicle technology; Urban space andscale; Lifestyle and behaviour; Regulation andpricing; and Institutions and governance).

1 Integrated. How ‘packages’ of policiescan be developed and implemented tomaximise synergies between measures.How policy coordination can be achievedhorizontally and vertically between publicand private actors, and between different

levels of government. How integratedpublic transport (e.g. ticketing, timetabling,information) can be promoted, particularlyacross administrative boundaries andbetween different transport providers.

2 Robust/resilient. The adaptability oftransport infrastructure and servicesto climate change and oil scarcity. Theeffects of changing weather on travelchoices and mode share. The vulnerability

of current infrastructure and services tohigher precipitation levels/flooding. Thedevelopment and introduction of transition

paths towards low carbon transporttechnologies.

3 Attractive. The effects of urban quality oflife and attractiveness of the built andnatural environment/public transporton individual travel choices. Measures toimprove accessibility without the need foradditional mobility.

4 Competitive. Identifying mechanisms

that can promote greater innovation/experimentation in urban transport policy.Instruments for delinking (decoupling)transport growth and urban productivity/competitiveness. Instruments for delinkinggrowth in prosperity with growth in traveldemand.




Table 5 Examples of research questions

ICT and vehicletechnology

Urban spaceand scale

Lifestyleand behaviour

Regulationand pricing

Institutionsand governance

Integrated To what extent canimproved travellerinformation (e.g.multi-modal andreal-time) leadto changes in

travel choices andpreferences?

How can urbanlayout and designhelp to improvethe acceptabilityof dense,mixed urban

development?

How can theinfluence ofpersonalised travelinformation onindividual travelchoices (e.g. mode,

frequency andtime of travel) bemaximised?

What are effectiveregulatory andfiscal instrumentsfor promotingmodal integrationand multi-modal

ticketing?

How can policypackages promotesynergiesbetween policyinstruments?How can policy

packagesinvolving differentstakeholders beintegrated?

Robust/

resilient

How can ICT andvehicle technologycontribute to theresilience of citiesto climate changeand resourcedepletion?

How resilient isurban transportinfrastructure toclimate changeand resourcedepletion?

What are theimpacts of climatechange andresource depletionon future transportneeds andindividual travel

choices?

How canregulatory andfiscal instrumentsbe used to increasethe take-up ofalternative fuelsand new vehicle

technologies?

To what extent arepolicies, processesand practicesrobust or resilientunder differentgovernanceconditions?

Attractive What is the roleof sustainabletransporttechnologies inpromoting moreattractive cities inwhich to live andwork?

To what extent canhigh quality urbantransport infra-structure (and itsdesign) promoteattractive cities inwhich to live andwork?

What is theinfluence of highquality urbantransport infra-structure (and itsdesign and quality)on individualtravel choices?

How can thequality oftransport servicesbe improvedunder conditionsof transportderegulation?

What is thecontributionof visions andenvisioning inmaking anddeliveringtransport policy?

Competitive What is the roleof sustainable

transporttechnologies inpromoting morecompetitive cities?

To what extent canhigh quality urban

transport infra-structure (and itsdesign) promotecompetitive cities?

Can moresustainable

urban transportpolicies attractand maintaininnovativebusinesses andsustainableresidents?

How can value formoney be delivered

concurrentlywith high-qualityintegratedtransport services?

Can long-termtransport policy

visions helpto reconcileobjectives formore efficient,equitable andsustainable urbandevelopment?






4 Synthesis

4.1 Synthesis Introduction

“Despite different research traditions, different policy constellations, different lifestyles and

mobility patterns, and different socio-economicconditions it is of utmost relevance to identify

commonalities and differences in research findingsand policy impacts” 40

This report on ‘sustainable urban mobility’is the result of a year-long investigation intothe state of the art of academic research onand policy practice in European cities andmetropolitan areas. It aims to bridge the gapbetween research and practice in the field ofurban mobility (‘research-based, practice-led’).

In 2011 the European Commission calledfor a new type of mobility, which involves anecessary transition from a primarily car based

personal mobility in cities to a mobility based onwalking and cycling, high quality public transportand less-used and cleaner passenger vehicles.41 This ‘new type of mobility’ is (in more or lessthe same words) also addressed in the longterm mobility visions of many European cities.

Therefore, this report is focused on thequestions what (type of) research is neededfor European cities to lead the way to moresustainable urban mobility and how cities canmove in this direction.

Which policies do European cities pursue,which initiatives, programs and projects dothey develop? And which results do they

achieve?

The guiding question that directed this

enquiry into the research needs of cities forthe following decades has been:

How do actors in cities and urban areas in their

policies for sustainable urban mobility strive fora transition towards a mobility based on walking

and cycling, high quality public transport andless-used and cleaner passenger vehicles, while preserving the social and economic achievementsof their current mobility systems?

The synthesis is divided into four main parts.First, the state of the art of policy practiceand research is summarised (section 4.2).Second, a number of research needs andquestions stemming from both research and

practice are identified (in section 4.3) basedon five themes of sustainable urban mobility(Urban space & scale, Regulation & pricing,Lifestyle & behaviour, ITS & Technology andGovernance). These research needs andquestions were developed in cooperationwith urban practitioners42 and academic

40 Nijkamp P, 2006, “In search of a transport policy

research agenda” International Journal of Transport

Economics XXXIII(2) 142.41 SEC (2011)391 final: ‘Commission Staff Working


Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area:

Towards a competitive and resource efficient

transport system’, p. 89

42 Through the EMI-POLIS workshop (June 2011), e-mail

contacts with various urban practitioners for the

State of the Art Urban Practice, the Urban Practice

Guide, Eurocities Mobility Forum (October 2011),

URBAN Intergroup meeting (November 2011), CYCLOMeeting (March 2012), etc. See the list of meetings,

conferences etc. in the appendix of this KRA.




researchers43. A number of differences inthe focus of policy practice and research –these are summarised under 11 key areas(in section 4.4). The final part of this chapter(section 4.5) sketches a future (applied)knowledge and research agenda on the themeof ‘sustainable urban mobility’ based on thisenquiry.

Such a new European knowledge andresearch programme is all the more necessaryin order to build on the lessons learnt fromindividual cities and to identify generalisablepolicy lessons and recommendations. Variouspractical projects such as those fundedby the CIVITAS Initiative44 have helped tosupport experiments in urban mobility butthey have not generally had a strong researchdimension, and have not fully considered

the generalisability or transferability of thelessons from these experiments.

This report presents an overview of importantresearch needs and questions for cities, basedon an analysis of the current state of theart in both policy and research. The reportsets the agenda for cities with the ambition

43 Through the EMI-POLIS workshop (June 2011), EMIscientific expert meeting (September 2011), the

position papers of Van Wee & Handy (Urban Space

& Scale), Sitavancova (ITS & Technology), Stead

(Governance), Goodwin (Lifestyle & Behaviour) Nash

& Whitelegg (Regulation & Pricing), contributions

of Prof. dr. Wim Hafkamp (Nicis Institute, Erasmus

University), Mobil.TUM2012 scientific conference

(March 2012) etc. See the list of meetings,

conferences etc. in the appendix of this KRA.

44 http://civitas.eu/index.php?id=69; 201245 David Banister (2008), ‘The sustainable mobility

paradigm’, Transport Policy, vol. 15, pp. 78.

to implement a sustainable urban mobilitysystems based on scientifically fundedknowledge and insights.

4.2 Synthesis State of the Art policypractice and research

“Public acceptability of sustainable mobility seemsto be high, provided that social norms can be

changed and the policy measures are presented asa package that can effectively be implemented”45

Policy documents in many European citiespose ‘sustainable urban mobility’ as theleading policy objective. Long-term visiondocuments (e.g. 2040, 2050) sketch imagesof green, safe, and healthy cities where thequality of life for citizens has been improvedas a result of a range of measures including

ones to tackle urban transport problems.Important dimensions of cities’ visions andambitions for sustainable urban mobilityinclude:– greater levels of accessibility in the city,

without requiring greater levels of mobility– a more sustainable modal split (i.e. less

reliance on cars, greater use of alternativemodes of transport)

– green and attractive public spaces and

– lower impacts on the environment,

Recurring themes in the municipal policydocuments are cycling, priority for public

transport, shared mobility, infrastructural changes(co-existing transport modes), integrated land-use planning, attractive city centres, campaigning

and awareness raising to change mobilitybehaviour, clean(er) vehicles, ITS and technologicalinnovation.

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/Mobil.TUM

http://civitas.eu/index.php?id=69

http://civitas.eu/index.php?id=69

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/Mobil.TUM




Many cities are aware that no single strategyis sufficient”.46 Cities acknowledge theimportance of sustainable urban mobilityand are creating or implementing planstoward sustainable urban mobility systemsin the future. However, there appear to bediscrepancies between long term visions orambitions on the one hand and the actualimplementation of policy measures and their

results on the other.47

Sustainable urban mobility has been onthe European agenda since the early-1990s,when the European Commission unveiledits first plans on road pricing. Especially theEuropean Commission, strongly encouragedby the European Parliament, has a clearvision on a new type of urban mobilitywhich is a defining focus for this report.48

The transitional focus of the EuropeanCommission and the specific issues relatedto this transition in urban areas (walking,cycling, road pricing, ITS, technology,behavioural change) set an ambitious targetfor the coming decades. Specific attentionin the policy documents of the EuropeanCommission of the last decade49 is topublic transport, (the promotion of) cleanvehicles and alternative energies, modal

shift, reducing congestion, pollution andaccidents, the integrated approach, sharingexperience and knowledge and reducing theuse of ‘conventionally-fuelled’ cars in urbanmobility.

There are also applied research anddissemination projects on a European scale.As regards these projects a great deal ofeffort has been put into the dissemination

of finished projects´ results50

but not allmunicipal councils and self-administrationsresponsible for urban transportation are

sufficiently familiar with these research anddevelopment results. Although numerousnew mobility optimisation measures areavailable, their practical implementation isoften very complex and/or time consuming.51

One of the most pertinent notions ofurban research recently has been sketchedby Banister (2008) who pointed out the

‘schizophrenic paths’ of cities with regard tosustainable mobility: it is clear that action isneeded but no effective action is undertakento remedy the current situation.52 According



36, no. 4, p. 415. See also David Banister (2008), ‘The

sustainable mobility paradigm’, Transport Policy, vol.

15, pp. 73-80.47 For more information, see Chapter 2 or the ‘State of

the Art Mobility Policy’ in Part II of this KRA

48 The European Commission defines sustainable

urban mobility as: “the necessary transition from

a primarily car based personal mobility in cities to a

mobility based on walking and cycling, high quality public

transport and less-used and cleaner passenger vehicles is

the central strategic challenge for cities in the decades to

come”.

49 See for example COM (2001)370 final: ‘Europeantransport policy for 2010: time to decide’,

COM(2007)551 final: ‘Green Paper: Towards a new

culture for urban mobility’, COM(2009)490 final:

‘Action Plan on Urban Mobility’ and COM(2011)144

final: ‘White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European

Transport Area – Towards a competitive and

resource efficient transport system’

50 Of for example CIVITAS

51 COM(2008) 887 final

52 David Banister (2005), ‘Unsustainable Transport: CityTransport in the New Century’, Routledge, London,

p. 234.




to Banister it is only through understandingand acceptance by the people in citiesthemselves that sustainable mobility willsucceed as playing a central role in the futureof sustainable cities. 53

A comparison of research agendas onsustainable (urban) mobility and transportsince the 1990s54 has been presented by

Stead in Chapter 3. While these agendashave different starting points and methods,a number of common themes emerge thatmany European cities are trying to address:– Urban space and scale– Regulation and pricing – Lifestyle and behaviour– ITS and vehicle technology– Governance

These themes are of course not exhaustive.The issue of urban freight and city logisticsis an important issue which is not touchedupon in this report.55 From the review of theacademic literature, four cross-cutting areasare identified where there is substantialscope for pushing forward existing researchboundaries related to sustainable urbantransport: urban research could especially

help to make city policies more integrated,robust/resilient, attractive and competitive56.

Clearly, it is important that the rightquestions are asked. According to thisreport it is of utmost importance that citiesthemselves build the transition agenda’s,from basic and applied research, to R&D andmainstreaming; from niches to regime andlandscape. This report, with the research

needs and questions, is therefore drawnup in close collaboration between urbanresearch and policy practice, both from apolicy and practice point of view. The stateof the art shows that cities are coping withmany similar challenges but that responsesare different depending on the local context.Research-based practical solutions in acomprehensive European (applied) knowledgeand research programme would really help

European cities and metropolitan areas moreas compared to the current situation.

4.3 Research questions and needsfrom practice and research

Within the broad frame of sustainable urbanmobility four themes can be identified:urban space & scale, regulation & pricing,lifestyle & behaviour and ITS & technology.

Additionally, a fifth and overarching themecan be identified: the ‘management’ of theintegrated approach: governance. Governance

53 David Banister (2008), ‘The sustainable mobility

paradigm’, Transport Policy, vol. 15, pp. 73-80.

54 Hensher (1993), Knowles (1993), Banister et al. (2000),

Kennedy et al. (2005), Goldman & Gorham (2006),

Nijkamp (2006), and Joint Programming Initiative

Urban Europe (2011)

55 As regards urban freight, see Joint Programming

Initiative Urban Europe, 2011, “Strategic ResearchFramework”, pp. 37-41 about the ‘connected city

2050’. As regards freight and city logistics see

Goldman T & Gorham R, 2006, “Sustainable Urban

Transport: Four innovative directions” Technology

in Society, 28(1-2), 261-273 and Siemens, 2011,

“Green light for sustainable urban development”

and “Sustainable Urban Infrastructure: London

Edition, a view to 2025”, http://www.siemens.

com/entry/cc/features/sustainablecities/all/pdf/

SustainableUrbanInfrastructure-StudyLondon.pdf 56 For more information, see Chapter 3 or the ‘State of

the Art Research’ in Part II of this KRA.

http://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/features/sustainablecities/all/pdf/SustainableUrbanInfrastructure-StudyLondon.pdf









recurs as an overarching theme as it is relatedto all key themes. Per theme, research needsstemming from urban research and practiceare summed up in the text boxes below.All questions per theme, divided betweenresearch and practice, can be found in theAppendix of this chapter.

The first theme ‘urban space & scale’57 relates

to all measures and interventions thatconcern the physical design of a city. Whatis the influence of the developments of newareas, densification of existing parts of thecity and reallocation of street spaces (e.g.bicycle paths instead of parking spaces) tothe daily urban systems in European cities?As physical interventions are of a permanentcharacter, most interventions classifiedwithin the theme’ ‘urban space’ therefore

could be classified as ‘hard’ measures.

By ‘regulation and pricing’58, the second

theme, -local- authorities have some powerfultools to reduce unwanted modes of transportand stimulate the use of alternative mobility.Examples are congestion schemes, roadpricing, parking policies, subsidising publictransport, low emission or environmentalzones and regulation and subsidy for cleanervehicles.

57 For more information on this theme, see (for

research) the academic position paper of Van Wee

& Handy and (for practice) the Urban Mobility

Practices from Bratislava (SK), Hamburg Hafencity

(DE), Hradec Králové (CZ), Poznan (PL), Rethymnon

(GR) and The Hague (NL)


research) the academic position paper of Nash &

Whitelegg and (for practice) the Urban MobilityPractices from London (UK), Oslo (NO) and

Stockholm (SE).

www.eltis.org




be awareness raising campaigns, providinginformation about alternatives, training andeducation programmes or assisting largecompanies in setting up mobility plans. Asthese ‘softer’ measures are often easier to betaken (in terms of support, planning, financesand time) there are there many examples ofthese measures across Europe.

The theme ‘ITS & Technology’60 is orientedtowards the question how cities can make

Table 7 Research Needs Regulation & Pricing

Theme ResearchResearch needs

PracticeResearch needs

Regulation & Pricing • Impact of pricing and regulation on theurban economy, on urban decentralisation,sprawl and job losses from existing urbancentres.

• Impacts of public transport pricing andparking policies on these same phenomena

• Long term impacts on land-use and spatialstructure.

• Effects on affordability of modes oftransport.

• Public and political acceptance of regulationan pricing.

• Efficiency and equity of pricing instruments.• Feasibility of full social cost pricing .

• Better balance between.regulation and pricing measures

• Public and political acceptance.• Effect of promotional campaigns

for more sustainable modes oftransport without regulatorymeasures at the same time.

Table 6 Research Needs Urban Space & Scale



Urban Space & Scale • Impact of land use policies on mobilitybehaviour.

• The role of self-selection.• Evaluation of accessibility effects.• Monetary analysis of land use policies.• Influence of information and

communications technologies (ICT).• Evaluation of land-use policies.

• New forms of infrastructure.• Required transport links.• National infrastructure

requirements versus uniqueindividual urban context.


research) the academic position paper of Goodwin

and (for practice) the Urban Mobility Practices fromCopenhagen (DK), Porto (PT), Sevilla (ES), Vilnius (LT)

and Worcestershire (UK).

Regarding the theme ‘‘lifestyle & behaviour’,59 one should think of any policy that aims toobtain behavioural change towards moresustainable transport choices. This could




best use of the (existing) technologicalopportunities. Partly, this theme coverscurrent technological innovations such

as cleaner cars and public transport. Nextto these, other developments such asteleworking or teleshopping and providing

Table 8 Research Needs Lifestyle & Behaviour



Lifestyle & Behaviour • Changes or transitions in householdcomposition and mobility behaviour.

• Long-run effects of initiatives on changingmobility behaviour.

• interaction between car ownership andother travel options.

• the impact of lifestyle on travel behaviour.

• impact of promotionalcampaigns.

• results of mobility managementmeasures on the long term.

• transferability of successfulpractices.

• definition of target groups.• impact of visitors’/tourists’

behaviour.• information and education.• influencing mobility behaviour

of citizens.• societal developments (e.g.

ageing) and mobility behaviour.

Table 9 Research Needs ITS & Technology



ITS & Technology • Development of new mobility managementmethods.

• Data collection, data integration.• New IT systems.• Transition to electric vehicles.• Shared means of transport.

• Information to overhaul thefleet of public transport system.

• Which kind of green fuel?• How to implement policy after

co-financed pilot/experimentalproject?

• New survey methodology.• New tool analysis area and

evaluation processes mobility/modal split.

• Optimisation of user experience,data and graph quality,e-government applications androuting algorithms.


research) the academic position paper of

Sitavancova and (for practice) the Urban MobilityPractices from Bucharest (RO), Sofia (BL), Utrecht

(NL) and Vienna (AT).




real-time information for users of publictransport are also phenomena that are part ofthis theme.

The theme ‘Governance’61 has a particularposition in this report as it is a moreoverarching theme and not as specifiedas the other themes. However, during thedevelopment process it became clear that

the theme is considered very important bythe urban policy-makers. Many researchneeds and questions from other themescould be characterised as governance issuesas well and they are all very much relatedto the ‘how’-question: it is not the questionwhat to change, but (depending on theactual situation) how this change could bestarted, implemented and brought furtherin the cities and metropolitan areas. The

notion of ‘governance’ also implies partingfrom tradition, top-down government andincluding bottom-up initiatives, industrialinitiatives, innovative partnerships and theinvolvement of all relevant stakeholders. 62

4.4 Analysis

Based upon the (desk) research, the academicposition papers, and input from urban

practitioners, academic researchers and other

stakeholders, an analysis has been madecombining the aforementioned researchneeds from research and practice.

This leads to a number of notions regardingsustainable urban mobility, both general(and concerning the overarching theme‘governance’) and more specific with a focuson one of the main themes. Every section is

concluded by a small text box summing upthe most relevant research priorities based onurban practice.63

General notionsUnsurprisingly, most research has a higherlevel of abstraction and a wider scoperegarding sustainable urban mobility thanurban practice. Policy measures are morespecific and on a micro-level. Likewise, the

focus upon themes within urban mobility israther different. Research is well advanced onthe theme ‘Regulation & Pricing’. However, theresearch needs that stem from urban practiceare not in this field particularly, but rather onthe themes ‘Urban Space & Scale’, ‘Lifestyle &Behaviour’ and ‘Governance’. The orientationof urban policy-makers seems to be towards‘soft’ measures (like behavioural campaigns)and (vulnerable to the economic crisis) land-

use policies. The academic urban researchhowever seems to have a very differentorientation towards ‘hard’ measures andeffects of, for example, road pricing. This putsacademic research in a specific forerunnerposition regarding the theme ‘regulation &pricing’, but at the same time shows thatresearch is not too much oriented towardsthe needs of decision-makers in cities (i.e.the requirements for implementing these

regulation & pricing policies).


research) the academic position paper of Stead

and (for practice) the Urban Mobility Practices from

Hannover (DE) and Zürich (CH).

62 See also Banister’s ‘schizophrenic paths’ (2005, pp.

234) of cities with regard to sustainable mobility: it is

clear that action is needed but no effective action is

undertaken to remedy the current situation.63 The analysis is summarised in an overview table in

the Appendix of this chapter.




GovernanceThe theme ‘governance’ has a peculiarposition in this Knowledge and ResearchAgenda, in ways that it is more or lessoverarching and not as easily specified as(most of) the other themes. Furthermore,many research needs identified withinthe other themes of this KRA do link

with governance issues. For example, the(governmental) scale on which measurescovered in the theme Regulation & Pricingshould be decided upon is hotly debated andquestioned. In both research and practicein the field of sustainable urban mobilityit is remarkable how the significance ofthe concept of ‘governance’ has increasedin the last years. City practitioners andpolicy-makers are looking for new forms

of deliberation and citizen involvement tohave the full endorsement for implementingtransitional measures to aim for a sustainable

future of their city calibrated upon a mobilitybased upon walking and cycling, high qualitypublic transport and less-used and cleanerpassenger vehicles. As indicated ‘governance’is a concept that should be re-thought: itimplies not only the traditional top-downmodel but also includes new and moreinclusive bottom-up initiatives, industrial

initiatives, innovative partnerships and theinvolvement of all relevant stakeholders. Inother words: there is a systematic changewithin urban societies where bottom-up andindustrial initiatives are becoming more andmore important, especially within the themeof sustainable urban mobility. Within thetheme governance, there are several issuessuch as demographic changes (e.g. ageingsocieties), environmental justice, social equity

and accessibility that should be taken intoaccount more clearly in both research andpractice. The notion of the possible conflict

Table 10 Research Needs Governance



Governance • ‘packages’ of policies and measures to maximisesynergies between measures.

• Horizontal and vertical policy coordination.• Cooperation within urban municipalities, at

regional or inter-authorial level?• Use of knowledge and information.

• Benchmarking.• Best practices.• Processes of policy transfer.• Policy experimentation and innovation in urban

transport policy.• Visions of sustainable urban mobility: differences

between sectors.

• How to integrate mobilitydevelopment strategieswith other urbandevelopment policy areas,e.g. environment, publiclighting, reinforcing city

cultural identity.• How to optimise processes

of integrated planningand decision-makinggovernance?

• What are the requirementsfor an integratedsustainable urban mobilityplan?

• On which scale is mobilityplanning the mosteffective?




between spatial (or mobility) function of anurban area versus the interests of citizensliving in that same area should be addressedfrom the very first stages of policy making.

1 One of the most important issues

underlying this theme is the (call for) anintegrated approach on urban mobility

policy. It is vital to note that ‘the integratedapproach’ can have many different formsof integrated policymaking; namelyhorizontal, vertical, spatial, temporal,



36, no. 4, p. 415. See also David Banister (2008), ‘Thesustainable mobility paradigm’, Transport Policy, vol.

15, pp. 73-80.

and modal. Despite the difficulties andthe different ways of using such a wideterm,cities seem to realise the “key lessonthat no single strategy is sufficient”.64 Inconceptual terms, there is a manifolduse of for example the terms ‘integratedapproach’, (or smart, or sustainable)which raises questions, namely; whatare the requirements for integrated

planning, and more important, how toestablish integrated sustainable urbanmobility planning? On which fields iscooperation most important; withinurban municipalities (integration betweenmobility planning and land use, urbanplanning, health etc.); on regional levelsor between levels of government. Animportant question in research is how‘packages’ of policies can be developed

and implemented to maximise synergiesbetween measures. The concept is mostlyused in ‘catch-all’ phrases to explain thecities’ commitment to involving as manydifferent sectors, layers of governmentand interest groups as possible. However,the current institutional structures makeit difficult to come up with commonsolutions, also in the field of sustainableurban mobility. Also other concepts such

as ‘smart’ and ‘sustainable’ are undisputedconcepts in long-term policies but theactual notion of these concepts for short-term policies and projects is unclear formany policy-makers.

2 Long term ambitions and investments

versus short term plans and

implementation Cities recognise theimportance of sustainable urban

mobility and are already forming plansto implement sustainable urban mobility

www.eltis.org




systems in the coming decades. However,

there appears to be a discrepancybetween long term visions or ambitionsand the actual policy measures that areimplemented. Another pressing issueaccording to policy makers regards theoften short term focus of their urbanpoliticians. The transition towards asustainable urban mobility system requireslong term planning and investment, whilethis can be impeded by decision making

of politicians looking for a short termpolitical gain, or the shift of urban politicsafter elections. The main question hereis: How to maintain long term vision (andassociated implementation) in the midstof political change? Obviously, technologyand available budgets play their role inthese implementation issues as well.

3 In recent years, a lot of effort has been

made into the dissemination of researchresults and successful policy and projects.It has however been proven to be verydifficult to transfer policy from one city tothe other, even though cities are copingwith many similar challenges. Althoughnumerous new mobility optimisationmeasures are available, their practicalimplementation still takes too long.65 Therefore, the question of transferability

of policy practice (and to a lesser extentresearch) should be critically reviewed, andresearch should be dedicated to the issue

of ‘how’ successful policy transfer could be

established.

Urban Space & ScaleWithin the theme ‘Urban Space & Scale’, thewider scope of research compared to urbanpolicy is clearly seen. While most emphasisin cities lies on infrastructural measures,research focuses on land use planning anddevelopment. The higher level of abstractionis shown by the way land use planning (and

its impact on mobility) is perceived by thedifferent actors. Cities expect measuresin land use planning to have a causalrelationship with mobility reduction, energyefficiency and less car use, while in research,this causal relationship is problematised.

4 Another point of concern is the spatial focusof research. Much research is dedicatedto the situation in the United States, and

less to European cities. Policy practiceon the other hand, seems not too muchoriented towards the situation in cities inthe United States of America (USA) butmainly looks to the European examples inthe field. The significance and quality of U.S.research is unchallenged. However, as theU.S.A-European combination of academicresearchers Handy and Van Wee alreadyacknowledge in their position paper66, there

Table 11 Integrated Research Needs Governance

Theme Research needs

Governance • Integrated approach.• Policy packaging.• Coherence between long term ambitions and implementation.• Transferability of urban mobility policy.

65 COM(2008) 887 final

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/projects.It







are major differences between EU and U.S.

cities in their conditions for sustainable urban

mobility. Among the differing conditions arethe much higher fuel prices in EU countries,a more extensive public transport network,a more explicit urban planning traditionand more focus on policy intervention andbehavioural change in Europe67. The specificand disproportional focus on U.S. cities istherefore questionable. The specific urbanform of the European context (often historic,

dense and multifunctional city centres anda large suburban area in varied forms) needs

to be understood in order to successfullyimplement an integrated approach betweenland use planning and transport policy. Isthis sufficiently done in current research?

5 In order to fulfil some pressing researchneeds, there needs to be a firmer connectionmade between what is defined here inthe themes ‘Urban Space & Scale’ and‘Lifestyle & Behaviour. Earlier studies of the

relationship between land use and travelbehaviour often assumed a simple sortof physical determinism, where the builtenvironment alone was thought to shapeindividual action and behaviour. Later on,studies began to consider the three-wayrelationships between land-use patterns,the socio-economic profile of individualsand their travel patterns. More recently still,investigation in this field also attempts to

incorporate issues of lifestyles and attitudes,related both to the socio-economic profileof individuals and also to the choices

66 See the position paper Van Wee/Handy in Part II of

this KRA.

67 Also North America is more focused on economic

growth and energy supply as compared to Europe,

which is more concerned with environmental issues

in a broader context. Further, it can be said that, in

general, the role of governmental bodies in planning

is traditionally larger in the EU and the citizens in

U.S.A. are more private-car oriented. Slow modes

are much more important in most European citiesas compared to the Northern American context. See

also position paper Prof. Van Wee/Prof. Handy.




Table 12 Integrated Research Needs Urban Space & Scale


Urban Space & Scale • Land use planning and its impact on mobility, urban economy, urbansprawl.

• A focus on European cities in research on land use planning.• Research that firmly and subtly reveals the causality between land use

planning and mobility behaviour.

Table 13 Integrated Research Needs Lifestyle & Behaviour


Lifestyle & Behaviour • Extensive evaluation of measures.• Effectiveness of ‘soft measures’.• Long(er) term results.• Transferability of successful measures.• Full inclusion and implementation in sustainable urban mobility policy.

Table 14 Integrated Research Needs Regulation & Pricing


Regulation & Pricing • Acceptance of politicians and citizens.• Combining Pricing and Regulation.• The right combination of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ measures in urban mobility

policy.• Urban parking policies (including Park + Ride).

Table 15 Integrated Research Needs ITS & Technology

Theme Research needsITS & Technology • Future-proof technologies?

• Rebound effects of ICT innovation on mobility.• What role for (urban) governments in ITS & Technology?• Full inclusion and implementation of ICT & Technology in sustainable

urban mobility policy.

individuals make about their residentiallocation and mode of transport. Providinginfrastructure, or developing a specific type

of built environment is not enough forcities to successfully transform to a moresustainable urban mobility system.

Lifestyle & BehaviourThe findings on the theme Lifestyle &Behaviour prove an interesting case for

European cities. On the one hand, softmeasures, aimed at behavioural changetowards more sustainable transport choices,




such as promotional campaigns, informationabout alternatives, setting up companymobility plans and the like, have receivedmuch attention and following throughoutcities in Europe as an important benefit ofthese measures are their low costs comparedto (for example) infrastructural measures.On the other hand, cities clearly indicatethat they have many research needs in this

field. This discrepancy might be explainedby the relative novelty of this type of policymeasures as a research and policy field inits own. As stated before, many measuresthat could be classified within the theme ofbehavioural change are closely tied to policyregarding land use and infrastructure.

6 Looking at the research needs of Europeancities in this theme, many of these are

connected to the (perceived) lack ofextensive evaluation of these measures.There is uncertainty in urban policypractice about the effectiveness of soft

measures, and especially the long term

results. Given the fact that this themeis increasingly important in academicresearch as well, the question that risesis whether the approach and researchthemes of research and practice might

not be consistent. Or does the problem liein the fact that research results are notenough, or not clearly enough translated tourban practitioners?

7 Transferability of successful measures

elsewhere? Soft measures such aspromotional campaigns, information aboutalternatives, setting up company mobilityplans and the like have received much

attention and following throughout citiesin Europe. Often visual, catching and ‘fun’,many of the successful projects are widelyshared. An important issue that arises iswhether these successes are ‘transferable’to other European cities. Furthermore, inthese projects, it is often not clear how

the pilot project or experiment can be

extended or implemented to achieve wide

scale adaptation.

Regulation & PricingAs mentioned previously, there is a cleardifference between research and urbanpractice in the field of Regulation & Pricing.Whereas these measures in research are seenas complementary to each other, cities mainlyseem to search for pricing measures in orderto generate revenue.

8 Road pricing and congestion schemeshave been extensively researched and

evaluated, but there are few (European)

examples of cities that have actually

implemented such schemes, it seemsbecause there is no political commitmentto implement these controversialmeasures. How to increase the acceptanceof both politicians and citizens to these

Regulation & Pricing measures? The case ofStockholm in the ‘Urban Practice Guide’68 shows that there is no need to search forcitizen approval beforehand for these hardmeasures, as long as abundant factualinformation is provided and a ‘politicalfigurehead’ who is in charge believes inthese measures.

68 See EMI’s Urban Practice Guide on Sustainable

Urban Mobility




9 Urban parking policies should receive

more attention in research. Urbanpractitioners in cities see this as one oftheir most important instruments, but(applied) research on this subject lagsbehind. The various measures withinparking policy, and the relating problems(such as space, competition within and

between cities) should be addressed.The concept of ‘Park and Ride’ shouldalso receive more attention; in researchobjections are raised against thisdevelopment, however, in practice Park andRide is still widely applied.

ITS & TechnologyAn important distinction within theparagraph has to be made between 1.

Information Technologies, which willlargely influence behaviour, and 2. Fueltechnologies, which focuses on resource

efficient, green vehicle technology. For thetheme ‘ITS & Technology’, it might be thehardest to bridge the gap between (needsand questions stemming from) researchand practice. This is seen by the variety of(types of) questions and the very specific andtechnical knowledge required. The questionis whether it is feasible for cities and urban

practitioners to stay up to date of currentinnovations and implement these intosustainable urban mobility policy. It could beargued that much travel information systems,for example, could better be developed bytransport companies, app designers and thelike and directly distributed to consumers(i.e. citizens). The costs of this bottom-upapproach are considerably lower (i.e. a mobileapplication instead of real-time information

screens at all public transport stops).

On both Information Technologies and Fuel

www.eltis.org




Technologies, European cities seem to strugglewith a lack of knowledge and expertise.This leads to insecurity about assessing

which technologies are ‘future-proof’ andpostponement of necessary investments formore sustainable mobility. This is also shownin the many pilot projects and experiments inthis field; large scale implementation of the

tested techniques is scarce.

10Also, there is a gap between researchand practice concerning the expectations

of what ITS & fuel technology will do

for more sustainable urban mobility

in the future. Stead notes that “manyearly studies seemed to suggest a hugepotential for change but in practice thechanges were often far less obvious andmore subtle”. The paradigm shift to think

of transportation as ‘an interconnected,communicating, and cooperation complexsystem’ (Sorensen 2010) has not entirelytaken place in European mobility policy.

11 The possible ‘rebound effects’ of ICT isan recurring theme in research; will thetechnological innovations indeed reducemobility and make the urban mobilitysystem more sustainable, or will it merely

spread mobility more evenly in terms oftime and space? In cities less attention ispaid to these effects. It seems that citiesfocus more on the specific ‘times’ and‘places’ of mobility streams (thus, focusingon reducing congestion) than on a generalreduction or more sustainable urbanmobility system.

4.5 Knowledge and ResearchAgenda: next steps

“Sustainable mobility has a central role to play

in the future of sustainable cities, but it is onlythrough the understanding and acceptance by the people that it will succeed”69

This report is the result of a year-long intensive

process looking for the research needs ofEuropean cities in the field of sustainableurban mobility. It can be said that cities andresearchers share largely the same vision of agreen, accessible and sustainable city. However,in a number of themes policy practice andresearch do not speak each other’s language.This report is an attempt to bridge the gapbetween the world of academic research andurban policy practice and presents directions

for future academic research, based upon thechallenges that practitioners in European citiesare currently facing.

In many cases, urban policy arrangementsor regimes have developed incrementallyover relatively long periods of times andcontain a wide mix of policy instrumentsand aims.70 The same can be said regardingthe issue of sustainable urban mobility. Due

to the economic crisis and the outcry forefficient mobility measures, (city/regional)governments have become increasinglyinterested in how to develop more integratedstrategies for sustainable urban mobility. Thisreport distinguishes, on the basis of the stateof the art in policy practice and research,five themes: Urban space & scale, Regulation & pricing, Lifestyle & behaviour, ITS & technologyand Governance.69 David Banister (2008), ‘The sustainable mobility

paradigm’, Transport Policy, vol. 15, p. 80.70 Rayner & Howlett, 2009; Wilson, 2000; Gunningham

& Sinclair, 1999




Table A1 Research needs and questions per theme stemming from research and practice

Theme

Urban Space & Scale Research - research needs and questions• Can the implementation of new land use policies significantly change mobility

behaviour? And if so, how, and in conjunction with which other policies?• How significant is the role of self-selection with respect to residential and

destination choice, and to what extent does this role moderate the effects ofland-use policies?

• What are appropriate methods for evaluating the accessibility effects of land-

use policies?• Can all of the pros and cons of land-use policies be quantified and expressed in

monetary terms (and thus be evaluated by Cost-Benefit Analysis)? If so, how?• How do information and communications technologies (ICT) shape residential

location choice, destination choice, and other aspects of travel behaviour, andhow are these effects evolving over time?

• How can land-use policies be evaluated according to a much broader range ofeffects than is currently common, including accessibility and other effects?

Practice - research needs and questions• Research on innovative new forms of infrastructure (Copenhagen).• Research on the required transport links (and relationship) between city and

satellite settlements (Rethymnon).• How can cities cope with the se standardised national infrastructural

requirements (for example the strict national rules in Italy on the design ofbicycle paths); and their own unique urban space? Is this situation comparableto other European countries? (CYCLO)

Shutterstock 1269131




Theme

Regulation & Pricing Research - research needs and questions• What would be the impact of an appropriate package of pricing and regulation

measures across all modes on land use and the urban economy? What are theimpacts of road pricing on urban decentralisation, on sprawl and/or job lossesfrom existing urban centres?

• What are the impacts of public transport pricing and parking policies on thesesame phenomena (urban decentralisation, sprawl and/or job losses fromexisting urban centres)?

•

What are the long-term impacts of regulation and pricing on land-use andspatial structure?• How can a package of measures be designed to ensure affordability, in terms of

the package of taxes, charges and expenditure?• How can a package be designed and implemented to attract public and political

acceptability?• Further research on the efficiency and equity of pricing instruments, and the

acceptability of fundamental changes in the pricing and financing of transport.• To what extent is full social cost pricing achievable in practice? Will this

inherently lead to a more sustainable transport system? And what are theimplications of full social cost pricing for the growth of mobility, technologicalchange and the financing of public transport?

•

Are there combinations of strategies that can achieve more sustainable patternsof mobility if full social cost pricing is not practical?

Practice - research needs and questions• How can urban municipalities ensure a better balance between regulation and

pricing measures? And what is needed in order to convince cities that measuresof regulation and pricing are an essential part of truly committed urban mobilitypolicy?

• How to make bold choices in regulatory and fiscal measures –that will makea substantial contribution to reducing urban car use- that will be accepted bysociety?

• Do promotional campaigns (carrots) have an effect without regulatory measures? Is the effect significantly stronger when carrots and sticks are combined insustainable urban mobility policy?





Theme

Lifestyle & Behaviour Research - research needs and questions• How to make best use of transitions in family composition and lifestyle in

establishing successful policy to change mobility behaviour?• What are the long-run effects of ‘real world’ sustainable transport initiatives,

including the trajectory that these will take as they build up over time as anincreasing proportion of the population experiences changes in their personalcircumstances?

• How to incorporate the influence of and on car ownership in dynamic

interaction with other travel choices, instead of taken it as a given conditionwhich has a one-way effect on car use?• How will a chosen lifestyle condition the choice of travel behaviour?• How far may lifestyles themselves be chosen in such a way as to provide for

different transport arrangements?

Practice - research needs and questions• How to measure the impact of promotional campaigns? Can quantitative data

and/or tangible results be derived of such policy measures/ campaigns? (TheHague)

• What are the results of mobility management measures on the long(er) term?And how can momentary success (of a campaign, for example) be preserved?

• To what extent are successful practices transferrable to other placed? Whatmeasures work best? Are there geographical differences between the type ofmeasures and success rates?

• What is the effectiveness of mobility management measures with regards tomobility behaviour, emission reductions and costs? (Zürich)

• How can people in a newly developed environment be influenced to make useof “low energy” mobility? And what prohibits people from using the system atpresent or possibly in the long run? (Hamburg)

• How to define specific target groups when working with behavioural change?(Copenhagen)

• How can measures clustered around mobility behaviour best take into accountbroad developments such as the ageing society? (Sofia)

• Can visitors of the city trigger citizens to change their mobility behaviour (e.g.cycling tourists) (CYCLO)

• What measures can be taken to increase citizens’ interest in cycling in theircity? How can urban design (or more specifically the design of a shared bicyclesystem) increase citizens’ interest to cycle? (CYCLO)

• To what extent are cities capable of influencing the mobility behaviour of theircitizens, visitors and companies?

• How can a municipality make better use of ‘software’ (versus ‘hardware’) ormobility management measures (versus infrastructural measures) to change itscitizens mobility behaviour? (The Hague)

• How can cities best prepare for changes in mobility? How to obtain betterknowledge about actual mobility choices of citizens? (Rethymnon)





Theme

ITS & Technology Research - research needs and questions• Does ICT act as a brake or an accelerator in the process on limits to travel? Some

travel demand can be reduced by ICT but it can also lead to other types of trips?

What is the balance between substitutive and complementary effects of ICTuse?• How can transport users best make use of the current information that is

available (and will be even more abundant in the future)? Which way will themessages for all users of urban transport systems be given priorities, so thatthey are provided with real-time information?

• How can current urban transport management systems be adjusted to newneeds of a better informed society?

• How can e.g. social network based data be calibrated, or errors be identified?• How to maintain sustainable data flow that models and automated urban

control systems work with?• How can extensive amounts of new data types be transformed into information,

and provided where and when needed for decision support in urban areas?• Which computational methods can be devised in order to blur the local

information and at the same time still keep it useful?• Why do individuals in urban areas share data and experience, and what are the

incentives? What type of data will be captured and shared, and what type ofdata needs protection?

• What are the implementation principles and methods of technologies necessaryfor electro-mobility expansion in urban areas?

• What are the safety issues of electro-mobility expansion? How to eliminatethem?

• How will traffic management systems in urban areas and information systemshave to be modified in response to the expansion of electro-mobility?

•

What are the most efficient methods of promoting car sharing? Are thesemethods universal; will they work the same way in all regions and city types?• How can real-time situational awareness and decision support systems be

optimised for shared-car systems purpose?

Practice - research needs and questions• When is a good time to overhaul the stock of the public transport system?• Which kind of green fuel will be ‘the best fuel’ in the future?• How to implement policy after a co-financed pilot project?• How to compare the technical specifications of bicycles and shared bicycle

systems, so that cities can make an informed choice on choosing a specificsystem? (CYCLO)

• What are new ways for survey methodology oriented to traffic and transportservices?

• How to create a new tool for analysis of the area and evaluation processes formobility and modal split (Bratislava)

• The City of Vienna indicates that their main topics of research are commondata interfaces and the optimisation of user experience, data and graph quality,e-government applications and routing algorithms

73 There are already activities in this field, see http://www.mobilityplans.eu/index.php?ID1=4&id=13,

financed by the European Union under the


Intelligent Energy - Europe (IEE) Programme,which is managed by the Executive Agency for

Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI); 2012.

http://www.mobilityplans.eu/index.php?ID1=4&id=13,







Theme

Governance Research - research needs and questions• How can ‘packages’ of policies be developed and implemented to maximise

synergies between measures?•

How can policy coordination be achieved horizontally and vertically betweenpublic and private actors, and between different levels of government.?• How can integrated public transport be promoted (e.g. ticketing, timetabling,

information), particularly across administrative boundaries and betweendifferent transport providers?

• On which fields is cooperation most important; within urban municipalities(integration between mobility planning and land use, urban planning, healthetc.); on regional levels or on inter-authorial levels?

• How are sub-national governments using benchmarking in the field of transportpolicy? What are the impacts (both directly and indirectly) of benchmarkingon policy change in Europe? To what extent has benchmarking enhancedcollaboration between different organisations involved in urban transport

policy?• Can the use of knowledge and information be given more weight in policy-

making in the transport sector? If so, how? Is it possible to identify howindicators have influenced the beliefs and expectations of domestic actors andhave these in turn affected strategies and preferences of domestic actors?

• How and to what extent are best practices used by practitioners? Are certaintypes of practices more transferable than others? Are there common principles(as opposed to best practices) associated with sustainable urban transportpolicies? Does the transfer of the same example of practice lead to differentresults (and impacts) as a consequence of different governance contexts?

• How can broad policy packages be implemented where they require cooperationbetween a range of different sectors and agencies? How can policy agendas

in different sectors be aligned to promote more sustainable patterns of urbantransport? What incentives can be used to promote the development of policypackages?

• To what extent are processes of policy transfer influenced by path dependencyand national (or sub-national) policy preferences? Are certain types of policymeasures more transferable than others (e.g. ideas, concepts, goals, instrumentsor programmes)? Is there any evidence of policy convergence in the field ofsustainable urban transport policy as a result of increased policy transfer?

• What type of conditions and instruments can help to promote policyexperimentation and innovation in urban transport policy? How can successfulexperimentation and innovation be mainstreamed? To what extent does theautonomy of sub-national government influence the degree of experimentation

and innovation that takes place?• How do visions of sustainable urban development differ between different

interest sectors? How wide are these differences in visions between cities acrossEurope? What are the expectations of different actors involved in developingvisions of sustainable urban transport and to what extent do these expectationschange during the vision-making process?

Practice - research needs and questions• How to integrate mobility development strategies into other urban development

policy areas like environment, tourism, economic development, etc.? (in Sofia)• How to optimise processes of integrated planning and decision making/

governance?

• What are the requirements for integrated sustainable urban mobility plans?73 • As (functional) urban areas do not necessarily correspond with municipal

borders, on which scale is mobility planning most effective?





The next table presents an overview of the analysis presented in paragraph 4.4, in which themost striking differences and commonalities between the two worlds of research and practiceare presented.

Table A2 Overview table of the synthesis/analysis

Theme Research Practice

Urban Space & Scale • Spatial focus.• problematises land use planning as a

solution to reduce mobility.

• Relationship land use, self-selectioneffects and mobility behaviour.

• infrastructural focus.• expects land use planning to

have a causal relationship withmobility reduction, energyefficiency, less car use.

• land use planning effectsmobility behaviour.

Lifestyle & Behaviour • (Long term) effectiveness of ‘softmeasures’?

• Transferability of policies.

• What moments (life events) are themost successful for a change of mobilitybehaviour?

• (Long term) effectiveness andresults?

• Transferability of city practices.• Popular policy tool.• From pilots/ experiments to

policy implementation.

Regulation & Pricing • Large amount of research devoted topricing.

• Importance of combination of bothregulation & pricing measures; policypackaging.

• Park + Ride; a solution?• Variety of instruments.

• Political reluctance toimplement pricing schemes.

• Focus on parking policies.•

Pricing as a source of revenue.

• Park + Ride widely implemented.• Parking (space, competiveness,

differentiation within parkingpolicy measures).

• Is the urban level the rightgovernmental scale forregulation & pricing policy?

ITS (information) &

Technology (fuel)• Specific questions.• Rebound effects? (seeing urban mobility

as a whole)• Expectations tempered due to outcome in

urban practice.• Cleaner fuels do not solve congestion or

parking problems.

• Lack of knowledge/expertise?• Emphasis on specific time and

place (congestion problems).• High expectations of fuel

technology.

• Insecurity about future stabilityof technologies, of largeinvestments.

• ITS; bottom-up or top-down?

Governance • Social equity, accessibility.• Environmental justice.

• Integrated approach.•

Transferability of policies and practice?

• Functions mobility systemversus citizens’ interests.

• Integrated approach.• Transferability of policies and

practice?




Table A3 List of stakeholder meetings organised/contributed/attended by EMI

Meeting Date Location Participants

Meeting UITP 31.03.2011 Brussels, Belgium. Other stakeholders.

Meeting POLIS 31.03.201130.05.2011

Brussels, Belgium. Other stakeholders.

Smart Cities and

Communities Initiative

Launch Conference

21.06.2011 Brussels, Belgium. Researchers, politicians,other stakeholders.

URBAN Intergroup: Urban

dimension in the White

Paper on Transport

22.06.2011 Brussels, Belgium. European politicians, otherstakeholders.

EMI-POLIS workshop 30.06.2011 Brussels, Belgium. Urban practitioners,researchers, otherstakeholders.

Transport Information Day

on Sustainable Surface

Transport Agenda

19.07.2011 Brussels, Belgium. Researchers, otherstakeholders.

Interview Mr. FritsLintmeijer, Vice-Mayor

Utrecht, Chairman

Eurocities Mobility Forum

28.07.2011 Utrecht, the Netherlands. Urban politician.

VOC symposium Openbaar

vervoer en de stad

02.09.2011 Tilburg, the Netherlands. Urban practitioners, otherstakeholders.

Workshop ‘Effective

solutions for green urban

transport – Learning from

CIVITAS cities”

13.09.2011 Brussels, Belgium. Urban practitioners,researchers, European-level practitioners, otherstakeholders.

Smart2Wheels 22.09.2011 Brussels, Belgium. Urban practitioners,researchers, European-level practitioners, otherstakeholders.

EMI science expert

meeting

27.09.2011 The Hague, theNetherlands.

Researchers, otherstakeholders.

Eurocities Mobility Forum 07.10.2011 Mannheim, Germany. Urban practitioners,European-levelpractitioners, otherstakeholders.




Meeting Date Location Participants

KPVV - ‘Duurzame mobiliteit in

de EU: Choose How You Move

in Worcestershire – succesvolle

gedragsverandering’.

03.11.2011 Utrecht, the Netherlands. Urban practitioners, otherstakeholders.

JIDFE 2011 (Journées Ile-de-France

Europe)

Conference ‘The city of the future’

08.11.2011 Brussels, Belgium. Urban practitioners,politicians, European-level practitioners, otherstakeholders.

‘Kenniscongres Europa 2011’ 16.11.2011 Helmond, theNetherlands.

Urban practitioners, otherstakeholders.

Urban Intergroup presentation EMI

Knowledge and Research Agenda

17.11.2011 Strasbourg, France. European politicians, otherstakeholders.

DBR conference 21.11.2011 Utrecht, the Netherlands. Researchers, otherstakeholders.

Meeting Cabinet Commissioner

Kallas

08.12.2011 Brussels, Belgium. European-level practitioners.

Meeting DG Move 08.12.2011 Brussels, Belgium. European-level practitioners.

MobilTUM paper presentation 19.03.201220.03.2012

Munich, Germany. Researchers.

CYCLO meeting, presentation EMI

Knowledge and Research Agenda

22.03.2012 Kamnik, Slovenia. Urban practitioners.

CORPUS - Mobility Workshop

‘Policy meets Research’, session

Research Agendas. Presentation

EMI Knowledge and Research

Agenda

20.04.2012 Szentendre, Hungary. Researchers, urbanpractitioners.

On the basis of the actual problems inimplementation in the European citiesresearch questions and research needshave been formulated by city/regionalpolicy practitioners and (practice-based)researchers. As sketched, the EuropeanCommission in its 2011 White Paper ontransport has ambitious targets for European

cities and metropolitan areas. However, thenext phase of research should focus on how

to bring the development towards sustainable

urban mobility further by answering thefundamental research questions and researchneeds from policy implementation.

The fundamental research needs andquestions (4.3 and 4.4) can be addressedin a comprehensive future (applied) ‘meta’knowledge and research programme on the

key themes and research needs, in closecollaboration with the cities. Also, morespecific research can be conducted within




the different themes. European cities andurban areas can be strengthened by meansof integrated, coordinated and overarchingknowledge on sustainable urban mobility.The production of this (new) knowledgecontributes to the creation of new and (more)sustainable urban mobility systems.

With the collaboration of urban research and

urban practice it is more and more possibleto answer how actors in cities and urbanareas in their policies for sustainable urbanmobility strive for a transition towards amobility based on walking and cycling, highquality public transport and less-used andcleaner passenger vehicles, while preservingthe social and economic achievements oftheir current mobility systems.

Please contact us via [email protected]

Appendix Synthesis

In this appendix, a list of research needs andquestions stemming from both research andpractice will be summed up. These needsand questions were developed in closecooperation with both urban practitioners71 and academic researchers72.

These research questions and needsfunctioned as a step-up to paragraph 4.3 inwhich the most important notions of thesynthesis are listed.

Subsequently, an overview table of theanalysis in paragraph 4.4 is presented, inwhich the most striking differences andcommonalities between the two worlds ofresearch and practice are presented.

71 Through the EMI-POLIS workshop in June 2011,

e-mail contacts with various urban practitioners

for the State of the Art Urban Practice, the Urban

Practice Guide, Eurocities Mobility Forum, CYCLO

meeting, meeting URBAN Intergroup of the

European Parliament etc.

72 Through the EMI expert meeting in September

2011, the position papers of Van Wee & Handy,

Sitavancova, Stead, Goodwin and Nash &

Whitelegg, contributions of Prof. dr. Wim Hafkamp,MobilTUM2012 scientific conference, CORPUS

Mobility Workshop

EMI asks all the cities, regions, universities,research institutes and other stakeholdersto support this quest for integrated andmultidisciplinary research. Therefore, wekindly invite all stakeholders involvedto give their views and support and(potentially) join the consortium for (amultiannual programme for) future appliedresearch in the field of sustainable urban

mobility based on the research needs ofEuropean cities and metropolitan areas.






Bibliography Sustainable Urban Mobility

A Official documents:European Commission

COM (92) 494 (final): ‘The Future Development of

the Common Transport Policy: A Global Approachto the Construction of a Community Framework for Sustainable Mobility - White Paper’, 2.12.1992.

COM (95) 601 (final): ‘The Citizens’ Network

- Fulfilling the potential of public passengertransport in Europe’, 29.11.1995.

COM (95) 691 (final): ‘Green Paper EuropeanCommission (1995): ‘Towards fair and efficient

pricing in transport’, not published in theOfficial Journal.

COM (2001) 370 (final): ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to decide’, 12.09.2001.

COM (2007) 551 (final): ‘Green Paper: Towards anew culture for urban mobility’ 25.09.2007.

COM (2008) 886 final: ‘Action Plan for theDeployment of Intelligent Transport Systems inEurope’, 16.12.2008.

COM (2008) 887 (final): ‘Proposal for a Directiveof the European Parliament and of the Council

laying down the framework for the deployment ofIntelligent Transport Systems in the field of roadtransport and for interfaces with other transportmodes’, 16.12.2008.

COM (2009) 279 (final): ‘ A sustainable future fortransport : Towards an integrated, technology-led

and user friendly system’, 17.06.2009

COM (2009) 490 (final): ‘Action Plan on Urban

Mobility’, 30.09.2009.

COM (2010) 2020 (final): ‘Europe 2020: A

Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and InclusiveGrowth’, 03.03.2010.

COM (2011) 571 (final): ‘Roadmap to a ResourceEfficient Europe’, 20.09.2011.

COM (2011) 109 (final): ‘Energy Efficiency Plan2011’, 08.03.2011.

COM (2011) 144 (final): ‘White Paper, Roadmapto a Single European Transport Area – Towardsa competitive and resource efficient transportsystem’, 28.03.2011.

COM (2011) 21 (final): ‘ A resource-efficientEurope – Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020

Strategy’, 26.01.2011.

SEC (2011) 391 (final): ‘Commission StaffWorking Document accompanying the WhitePaper – Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area: Towards a competitive and resource efficient

transport system’, 28.03.2011.

COM (2006) 314 (final): ’Keep Europe moving- Sustainable mobility for our continent - Mid-

term review of the European Commission’s 2001Transport White paper’, 22.06.2006.

B Official documents:Ministerial meetings

Conclusions of the French Presidency of theEuropean Union at the end of the informalmeeting of Ministers responsible for urbanaffairs at the Conference ‘Europe, spatial andurban development’, Lille, 2 November 2000;

see http://www.eukn.org/E_library/Urban_Policy/Lille_Action_Programme

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/29.11.1995.COM

http://www.eukn.org/E_library/Urban_Policy/Lille_Action_Programme









Ministerial meeting urban policy ‘citiesempower Europe’, Conclusions Dutchpresidency 2004.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/urban2/pdf/112004_rotterdam_conclusion.pdf

Bristol Accord, Conclusions of MinisterialInformal Meeting on Sustainable Communitiesin Europe, during UK Presidency, 2005. http://

ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/themes/urban/leipzig_charter.pdf

Leipzig Charter on Sustainable EuropeanCities, German Presidency, 24 May 2007.www.eu2007.de

Final statement by the ministers in chargeof urban development, 25 November 2008,Marseille, French Presidency. http://www.

rfsustainablecities.eu/IMG/pdf/Final_statement_EN_cle5df3a3-1.pdf

C General online information

CIVITAS – Cleaner and better transport incitieshttp://www.civitas.eu/index.php?id=69 (13-04-2012)

Clean Vehicle Portalhttp://www.cleanvehicle.eu/startseite /(06-02-2012)

COMmon PROcurement of clean collective andpublic service transport vehicleshttp://www.compro-eu.org /(13-04-2012)

Coordinamento Palermo Ciclabile - FIABhttp://www.palermociclabile.org /(18-04-2012)

Covenant of Mayors – committed to localsustainable energyhttp://www.eumayors.eu/index_en.html(13-04-2012)

Eltis Urban Mobility Portalhttp://www.eltis.org

(06-02-2012)

EMTA - European Metropolitan TransportAuthoritieshttp://emta.com (07-02-2012)

EPOMM - European Platform on Mobility

Managementhttp://www.epomm.eu /(07-02-2012)

European Commission - Mobility & Transporthttp://ec.europa.eu/transport/index_en.htm(07-02-2012)

European Commission (2011), Clean transport,urban Transport

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/urban/index_en.htm (13-04-2012)

European Green Cars Initiativehttp://www.green-cars-initiative.eu/public /(16-04-2012)

European Smart Citieshttp://www.smart-cities.eu /

(06-02-2012)

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/urban2/pdf/112004_rotterdam_conclusion.pdf


http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/themes/urban/leipzig_charter.pdf




http://www.rfsustainablecities.eu/IMG/pdf/Final_statement_EN_cle5df3a3-1.pdf




http://www.cleanvehicle.eu/startseite

http://www.compro-eu.org/

http://www.palermociclabile.org/

http://www.eumayors.eu/index_en.html

http://www.eltis.org/

http://emta.com/

http://www.epomm.eu/

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/urban/index_en.htm



http://www.smart-cities.eu/

http://www.smart-cities.eu/




http://ec.europa.eu/transport/index_en.htm

http://www.epomm.eu/

http://emta.com/

http://www.eltis.org/

http://www.eumayors.eu/index_en.html

http://www.palermociclabile.org/

http://www.compro-eu.org/

http://www.cleanvehicle.eu/startseite














FIETSenWERKhttp://www.fietsenwerk.be/nl/home-1.htm (06-02-2012)

Förening Öresundhttp://www.oresund.com /(13-04-2012)

Intelligent Energy Europe

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent /(07-02-2012)

KpVV (Transport Knowledge Resource Centre)http://www.kpvv.nl(07-02-2012)

Marie de Paris - Velib’http://en.velib.paris.fr /(24-04-2012)

Max - Successful Travel Awareness Campaignsand Mobility Management Strategieshttp://www.max-success.eu /(07-02-2012)

Metropole Ruhrhttp://www.metropoleruhr.de/index.php?id=6826(27-04-2012)

Mobiliteitsmakelaar Haaglandenwww.mobiliteitsmakelaarhaaglanden.nl /(06-02-2012)

Mobility - The European public transportmagazinehttp://www.mobility-mag.com /(07-02-2012)

NICHES+ Transporthttp://www.niches-transport.org /( 07-02-2012)

Obis Projecthttp://www.obisproject.com /(07-02-2012)

Oresund Ecomobilityhttp://www.oresundecomobility.org /(13-04-2012)

PILOT - Planning Integrated Local Transport

http://www.pilot-transport.org /( 07-02-2012)

POLIS - European Cities and Regionsnetworking for Innovative Transport Solutionshttp://www.polisnetwork.eu(07-02-2012)

Presto Cyclinghttp://www.presto-cycling.eu

(06-02-2012)

PRoGRESS projecthttp://www.progress-project.org /(07-02-2012)

Sustainable Urban Mobility Planshttp://www.mobilityplans.eu

(06-02-2012)

Transport Learninghttp://transportlearning.net /(07-02-2012)

UITP - International Association of PublicTransporthttp://www.uitp.org(07-02-2012)

Urban Audit

http://www.urbanaudit.org /(13-04-2012)

http://www.fietsenwerk.be/nl/home-1.htm

http://www.oresund.com/

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent

http://www.kpvv.nl/

http://en.velib.paris.fr/

http://www.max-success.eu/

http://www.metropoleruhr.de/index.php?id=6826


http://www.mobiliteitsmakelaarhaaglanden.nl/

http://www.mobility-mag.com/

http://www.niches-transport.org/

http://www.obisproject.com/

http://www.oresundecomobility.org/

http://www.pilot-transport.org/

http://www.polisnetwork.eu/

http://www.presto-cycling.eu/

http://www.progress-project.org/

http://www.mobilityplans.eu/

http://transportlearning.net/

http://www.uitp.org/

http://www.urbanaudit.org/

http://www.urbanaudit.org/

http://www.uitp.org/

http://transportlearning.net/

http://www.mobilityplans.eu/

http://www.progress-project.org/

http://www.presto-cycling.eu/

http://www.polisnetwork.eu/

http://www.pilot-transport.org/

http://www.oresundecomobility.org/

http://www.obisproject.com/

http://www.niches-transport.org/

http://www.mobility-mag.com/

http://www.mobiliteitsmakelaarhaaglanden.nl/



http://www.max-success.eu/

http://en.velib.paris.fr/

http://www.kpvv.nl/

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent

http://www.oresund.com/

http://www.fietsenwerk.be/nl/home-1.htm




Urban Audithttp://www.urbanaudit.org/index.aspx(07-02-2012)

Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhrhttp://vrr.de/de/index.html#(27-04-2012)

D Articles/information online(author unknown)

‘Athens Mayor commends constructivemeeting on infrastructure’ (28-04-2010)http://www.cityofathens.gr/en/node/11419(08-02-2012)

‘Athens Mayor signs Charter of Brussels inletter to Ecogreens’(06-10-2009)

http://www.cityofathens.gr/en/node/9839 (08-02-2012)

‘Budapest: Cyclist numbers double’ (2010)http://sustainablecities.dk/en/city-projects/cases/budapest-cyclist-numbers-double(07-02-2012)

‘Capture Copenhagen Case Study: Priobus -bus service improvements’ (year of publication

unknown)http://www.eltis.org/studies/copenhagen.htm (07-02-2012)

‘Choose how you move’http://www.leics.gov.uk/choosehowyoumove(08-02-2012)

‘Congestion Charging’ (year of publicationunknown)

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/default.aspx(06-02-2012)

‘Electric urban Public Transport in CraiovaMunicipality’(2009)http://eltis.org/index.php?id=13&study_id=2591(07-02-2012)

‘Joc de la Mobilitat (Mobility Game)’ (2009)http://www.oriolmanya.net/2009/09/24/joc-de-la-mobilitat-mobility-game/ (06-02-2012)

http://www.jocdelamobilitat.cat / (appears nolonger online)‘Le service Autolib’: c’est parti’ (05-12-2011)http://www.paris.fr/accueil/accueil-paris-fr/autolib-les-premieres-stations/rub_1_actu_94468_port_24329 (06-02-2012)‘Milan introduces traffic charge’ (02-01-2008)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7167992.stm (07-02-2012)

‘Peak traffic avoidance NL - results’ (year ofpublication unknown)http://www.spitsmijden.nl/resultaten/english /(07-02-2012)

‘Randstad 2040’ (year of publication unknown)http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/gebiedsontwikkeling(07-02-2012)

‘Randstad under single administrativeauthority’ (23-01-2007)http://crossroadsmag.eu/2007/01/randstad-under-single-administrative-authority-commission/(06-02-2012)

‘Randstad Urgent’ (year of publicationunknown)

www.rijksoverheid.nl(07-02-2012)

http://www.urbanaudit.org/index.aspx

http://vrr.de/de/index.html

http://www.cityofathens.gr/en/node/11419


http://sustainablecities.dk/en/city-projects/cases/budapest


http://www.eltis.org/studies/copenhagen.htm

http://www.leics.gov.uk/choosehowyoumove

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/default.aspx


http://eltis.org/index.php?id=13&study_id=2591


http://www.oriolmanya.net/2009/09/24/joc-de-la-mobilitat-mobility-game/

http://www.jocdelamobilitat.cat/

http://www.paris.fr/accueil/accueil-paris-fr/autolib-les-premieres-stations/rub_1_actu_94468_port_24329



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7167992.stm


http://www.spitsmijden.nl/resultaten/english

http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/gebiedsontwikkeling


http://crossroadsmag.eu/2007/01/randstad

http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/

http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/

http://crossroadsmag.eu/2007/01/randstad



http://www.spitsmijden.nl/resultaten/english






http://www.jocdelamobilitat.cat/

http://www.oriolmanya.net/2009/09/24/joc-de-la-mobilitat-mobility-game/





http://www.leics.gov.uk/choosehowyoumove

http://www.eltis.org/studies/copenhagen.htm





http://vrr.de/de/index.html

http://www.urbanaudit.org/index.aspx




City of Dresden (2011), Mobilitäthttp://www.dresden.de/de/08/c_020.php(13-04-2012)City of Frankfurt (year of publication un-known), Low Emission zone Frankfurt am Mainhttp://www.frankfurt.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=3060&_ffmpar[_id_inhalt]=4496082(13-04-2012)

City of Hamburg (2012), Verkehrhttp://www.hamburg.de/verkehr /(13-04-2012)City of Hannover - Mobilität und Verkehrhttp://www.hannover.de/de/wirtschaft/mobili-taet/index.html (16-04-2012)

City of Malmö (year of publication unknown),Mobility in Malmö

http://www.malmo.se/English/Sustainable-City-Development/Mobility.html(13-04-2012)

City of Munich (year of publication unknown) -Traffic and transport in Munich and the region

http://www.muenchen.de/int/en/traffic.html(17-04-2012)

City of Prague (2010) - Prague Integrated

Transport http://www.praha.eu/jnp/en/transport/getting_around/prague_integrated_transport/index.html (23-04-2012)

City of Stockholm (2007) ‘Stockholm Vision 2030’

http://international.stockholm.se/Future-Stockholm/(27-04-2012)

CIVITAS (year of publication unknown) – Cityof Bremenhttp://www.civitas-initiative.org/index.php?id=66&sel_menu=35&city_id=26 (13-04-2012)

CIVITAS (year of publication unknown) - Cityof Portohttp://www.civitas-initiative.org/index.

php?id=66&sel_menu=35&city_id=90 (23-04-2012)

Cyclomobility (2011) ‘Cycling in Seville selfattempt’

http://www.cyclomobility.com/feature/cycling-in-seville-self-attempt/No longer accessible online as of January 2012Cyclomobility (2011) ‘The circle of life -Revolution! The story of cycling success in Seville’

http://www.cyclingmobility.com/feature/the-circle-of-life/No longer accessible online as of January 2012EAUE - European Academy of the UrbanEnvironment (2001) ‘Vienna: the new concept fortransport and city planning’

http://www.eaue.de/winuwd/89.htm (27-04-2012)

EEA - European Environment Agency (year

of publication unknown), ‘Freight TransportDemand by mode and group of goods’

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/freight-transport-demand-by-mode/folder_contents(16-04-2012)

EIB (2012)http://www.eib.org/projects/loans/2004/20040474.htm

(17-04-2012)

http://www.dresden.de/de/08/c_020.php

http://www.frankfurt.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=3060&_ffmpar


http://www.hamburg.de/verkehr

http://www.hannover.de/de/wirtschaft/mobilitaet/index.html


http://www.malmo.se/English/Sustainable-City-Development/Mobility.html


http://www.muenchen.de/int/en/traffic.html

http://www.praha.eu/jnp/en/transport/getting_around/prague_integrated_transport/index.html



http://international.stockholm.se/Future-Stockholm/


http://www.civitas-initiative.org/index.php?id=66&sel_menu=35&city_id=26




http://www.cyclomobility.com/feature/cycling

http://www.cyclingmobility.com/feature/the

http://www.eaue.de/winuwd/89.htm

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/freight-transport-demand-by-mode/folder_contents



http://www.eib.org/projects/loans/2004/20040474.htm







http://www.eaue.de/winuwd/89.htm

http://www.cyclingmobility.com/feature/the

http://www.cyclomobility.com/feature/cycling










http://www.muenchen.de/int/en/traffic.html





http://www.hamburg.de/verkehr



http://www.dresden.de/de/08/c_020.php




EU Observer, ‘Opposition to EU plan for petrol-

car-free cities’ (29-03-2011) http://euobserver.com/9/32084/?rk=1 (16-04-2012)

EUKN (05-01-2011) ‘URBACT facing the crisis: final publication now available’

http://www.eukn.org/E_library/Economy_Knowledge_Employment/Urban_Economy/

Urban_Economy/URBACT_Cities_facing_the_crisis_final_publication_now_available(16-04-2012)EUKN dossier Sustainable Urban Mobilityhttp://www.eukn.org/Dossiers/Sustainable_Urban_Mobility(08-02-2012)

EUKN (2009 ), ‘Sustainable Urban Mobility inRomania’

http://www.eukn.org/Dossiers/Sustainable_Urban_Mobility/Policy_on_sustainable_urban_mobility_in_NFPs/Sustainable_Urban_Mobility_in_Romania(02-05-2012)

European Commission, ManagEnergy (2012)Park and Ride System - Prague, Czech Republic

http://www.managenergy.net/resources/771(23-04-2012)

Fietsberaad (2011), ‘Pilot Bicycle parking systemin Utrecht and Groningen by ProRail’ http://www.fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?lang=en&section=nieuws&mode=newsArticle&newsYear=2011&repository=Pilot+bicycle+parking+system+in+Utrecht+and+Groningen+by+ProRail(02-05-2012)

Glasgow City Council (2012), Keeping

Glasgow Moving http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/Residents/GettingAround/Roads/KeepGlasgowMoving /(13-04-2012)

Hamburg Chamber of Commerce (year ofpublication unknown), Sector Profile – PassengerTransport in Hamburg

http://www.hk24.de/en/economic/347690/sectorprofile_passenger_transport.html;jsessionid=D06BE2592CC09FBFEADFABCA2CD98AAF.repl20(13-04-2012)

Helsinki Region Transport (2011) - SystemPlan HLJ 2011 http://www.hsl.fi/EN/HLJ2011/preparationofhlj/visionandstrategy/Pages/default.aspx

(16-04-2012)

HKL (date of publication unknown) - Helsinkicity transporthttp://www.hel.fi/hki/hkl/en/About +HKL(16-04-2012)

In-Time, Intelligent and efficient travelmanagement for European cities (year ofpublication unknown) Munich

http://www.in-time-project.eu/en/project/pilot_cities/munich.htm(17-04-2012)

League of American bicyclists (2011 ) ‘VeloCity- How Sevilla, Spain is becoming a world-classbicycling city’

http://blog.bikeleague.org/blog/2011/03/velo-city-sevilla/(27-04-2012)

http://euobserver.com/9/32084/?rk=1






http://www.eukn.org/Dossiers/Sustainable_Urban_Mobility


http://www.eukn.org/Dossiers/Sustainable_Urban_Mobility/Policy_on_sustainable_urban_mobility_in_NFPs/Sustainable_Urban_Mobility_in_Romania




http://www.managenergy.net/resources/771

http://www.fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?lang=en&section=nieuws&mode=newsArticle&newsYear=2011&repository=Pilot+bicycle+parking+system+in+Utrecht+and+Groningen+by+ProRail





http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/Residents/GettingAround/Roads/KeepGlasgowMoving



http://www.hk24.de/en/economic/347690/sectorprofile_passenger_transport.html


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/D06BE2592CC09FBFEADFABCA2CD98AAF.repl


http://www.hsl.fi/EN/HLJ2011/preparationofhlj/visionandstrategy/Pages/default.aspx



http://www.hel.fi/hki/hkl/en/About

http://www.in-time-project.eu/en/project/pilot_cities/munich.htm


http://blog.bikeleague.org/blog/2011/03/velo

http://blog.bikeleague.org/blog/2011/03/velo



http://www.hel.fi/hki/hkl/en/About
















http://www.managenergy.net/resources/771
















Madrid, Área de Gobierno de Medio Ambiente,Seguridad y Movilidad(year of publicationunknown) - Movilidad

http://www.madridmovilidad.es/es/inicio.aspx(17-04-2012)

People for Bikes (2011) ‘Seville’s lesson to world:

how to become bike friendly’

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/

sevilles_lesson_to_world_how_to_become_bike_friendly(27-04-2012)

ProRail (2011), http://www.prorail.nl/pers/Persberichten/Actueel/Regionaal/Pages/Pro-RailstartproeffietsparkeersysteeminUtrechten-Groningen.aspx(02-05-2012)

Rotterdam Climate Initiative (year of publica-tion unknown) - http://rotterdamclimateproof.nl/nl/100_klimaatbestendig/nieuws/archief_nieuwsbrieven?xzine_id=21&article_id=504 (23-04-2012)

Sustainable Cities, ‘Lyon: An overall vision fortransport - Urban Mobility Master Plan’ (yearof publication unknown)http://sustainablecities.dk/en/city-projects/

cases/lyon-an-overall-vision-for-transport-urban-mobility-master-plan(17-04-2012)

Transport for London (year of publication un-known), - Congestion Charging - Benefitshttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestion-charging/6723.aspx (16-04-2012)

Verkeerskunde (2009), ‘Weesfietsenaanpak vanstart’http://www.verkeerskunde.nl/weesfietsenaan-pak-van-start.19313.lynkx(02-05-2012)

Vlaamse Overheid, Mobiliteit en Werken(year of publication unknown), MobilteitsplanVlaanderen

http://www.mobiliteitsplanvlaanderen.be(13-04-2012)

Wikipedia (2012), Frankfurt Rhine-Mainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_Rhine-Main(13-04-2012)

E publications online(author unknown)

Ajuntament de Barcelona (2010) –http://www.bcn.es/agenda21/A21_text/guies/La_mobilitat2.pdf (13-04-2012)

Belgische Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers(2008), Algemene beleidsnota van de

staatssecretaris voor Mobiliteithttp://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/pdf/52/0995/52K0995025.pdf (13-04-2012)

Birmingham City Council (2001) – http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=SystemAdmin%2FPageLayout&cid=1223092749359&packedargs=website%3D1&pagename=BCC%2FCommon%2FWrapper%2FWra

pper&rendermode=live(13-04-2012)

http://www.madridmovilidad.es/es/inicio.aspx

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/sevilles_lesson_to_world_how_to_become_bike_friendly



http://www.prorail.nl/pers/Persberichten/Actueel/Regionaal/Pages/ProRailstartproeffietsparkeersysteeminUtrechtenGroningen.aspx




http://rotterdamclimateproof.nl/nl/100_klimaatbestendig/nieuws/archief_nieuwsbrieven?xzine_id=21&article_id=504



http://sustainablecities.dk/en/city-projects/cases/lyon


http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/6723.aspx


http://www.verkeerskunde.nl/weesfietsenaanpak-van-start.19313.lynkx


http://www.mobiliteitsplanvlaanderen.be/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_Rhine

http://www.bcn.es/agenda21/A21_text/guies/La_mobilitat2.pdf


http://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/pdf/52/0995/52K0995025.pdf


http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=SystemAdmin%2FPageLayout&cid=1223092749359&packedargs=website%3D1&pagename=BCC%2FCommon%2FWrapper%2FWrapper&rendermode=live
















http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_Rhine

http://www.mobiliteitsplanvlaanderen.be/

















http://www.madridmovilidad.es/es/inicio.aspx




Birmingham City Council (2003) – http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite/walkingstrategy?packedargs=website%3D4&rendermode=1(13-04-2012)

Birmingham City Council (year of publicationunknown) – T (http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite/trans-strategy?packedargs=website%3D4&rendermode=live)

(13-04-2012)

Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest (2010), IRIS II,Mobiliteitsplan Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest

http://www.openbareruimtebrussel.irisnet.be /(13-04-2012)

Capital Region of Denmark (2008), http://www.regionh.dk/NR/rdonlyres/D07BBC02-EE45-4FDC-AEF7-0BFCA1ECA99C/0/080904_RUP_

UK_net.pdf (13-04-2012)

Centro (year of publication unknown)- ‘Making

the Connections’

http://www.centro.org.uk/LTP/LTP.aspx(13-04-2012)

Centrope (2006) ‘Centrope Vision 2015’

http://www.centrope.com/repository/

centrope/downloads/Publication_CENTROPE_Vision_2015_English.pdf (27-04-2012)

Centrope (year of publication unknown)‘Centrope.news Newsletter 01 - Transport adMobility in Centrope’

http://www.centrope.com/repository/centrope/downloads/Transport_and_mobility_in_Centrope.pdf

(27-04-2012)

Certu (2007) Urban Road Pricing - the question of

acceptability

http://www.curacaoproject.eu/documents/acceptability-road-pricing-CERTU.pdf (07-05-2012)

CFCU (2007) – Master Plan de Transport Urban– Bucuresti, Sibiu si Ploiesti (2007) http://www.ploiesti.ro/AV%20FINAL.pdf

(13-04-2012)

City of Amsterdam - DIVV (2010) Altijd inBeweging

http://www.amsterdam.nl/gemeente/organisatie-diensten/ivv/divv-organisatie/even-voorstellen(23-04-2012)

City of Amsterdam - DIVV (2010) Mobiliteit in en

rond Amsterdam - Een blik op de toekomst vanuiteen historisch perspectief

http://www.amsterdam.nl /@366626/pagina/(23-04-2012)

City of Amsterdam (2010) Amsterdam Elektrisch- het Plan

http://91.205.33.8/Agora/cp/uploads/bronnen/actieplanamsterdamelektrisch_1328789729.pdf (23-04-2012)

City of Antwerpen (2010), Masterplan 2020 – Bouwstenen voor de uitbreiding van hetMasterplan Mobiliteit Antwerpen

http://www.antwerpen.be/docs/Stad/Districten/Deurne/Masterplan%202020.pdf (13-04-2012)

City of Bremen - (year of publicationunknown), http://www.communauto.com/

images/03.coupures_de_presse/video_summary.pdf (13-04-2012)

http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite/walkingstrategy?packedargs=website%3D4&rendermode=1



http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite/trans


http://www.openbareruimtebrussel.irisnet.be/

http://www.regionh.dk/NR/rdonlyres/D07BBC02-EE45-4FDC-AEF7-0BFCA1ECA99C/0/080904_RUP_UK_net.pdf




http://www.centro.org.uk/LTP/LTP.aspx

http://www.centrope.com/repository/centrope/downloads/Publication_CENTROPE_Vision_2015_English.pdf



http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/Centrope.news




http://www.curacaoproject.eu/documents/acceptability-road-pricing-CERTU.pdf


http://www.ploiesti.ro/AV


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20FINAL.pdf

http://www.amsterdam.nl/gemeente/organisatie-diensten/ivv/divv-organisatie/even



http://www.amsterdam.nl/

http://91.205.33.8/Agora/cp/uploads/bronnen/actieplanamsterdamelektrisch_1328789729.pdf


http://www.antwerpen.be/docs/Stad/Districten/Deurne/Masterplan


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/202020.pdf

http://www.communauto.com/images/03.coupures_de_presse/video_summary.pdf






http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/202020.pdf





http://www.amsterdam.nl/




http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20FINAL.pdf








http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/Centrope.news




http://www.centro.org.uk/LTP/LTP.aspx





http://www.openbareruimtebrussel.irisnet.be/









City of Brussel (2010) Gemeentelijk

mobiliteitsplan van de stad Brussel, http://www.brussel.be/dwnld/26403717/PCM_BXL_Rapport_phase2_v3_fev2012_NL_site.pdf (13-04-2012)

City of Copenhagen (2009) Working paper

- Economic evaluation of cycle projects -methodology and unit prices - Summary

http://www.kk.dk/sitecore/content/Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/SubsiteFrontpage/LivingInCopenhagen/CityAndTraffic/CityOfCyclists/~/media/F49DA3FEB9164164AA56B737DC6889A1.ashx(07-02-2012)

City of Copenhagen (2009 ), Eco-Metropolis, Our

vision for Copenhagen 2015

http://www.kk.dk/FaktaOmKommunen/

PublikationerOgRapporter/Publikationer/tmf_publikationer.aspx?mode=detalje&id=674(13-04-2012)

City of Copenhagen (2009), http://www.kk.dk/sitecore/content/Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/SubsiteFrontpage/LivingInCopenhagen/CityAndTraffic/CityOfCyclists/~/media/F49DA3FEB9164164AA56B737DC6889A1.ashx(13-04-2012)

City of Copenhagen (2010), Traffic inCopenhagen 2009

http://www.kk.dk/sitecore/content/Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/SubsiteFrontpage/LivingInCopenhagen/~/media/BF3A66B079AB4ACAA6CA167ECF151EB3.ashx(13-04-2012)

City of Dresden (2008), http://www.dresden.de/

media/pdf/presseamt/Strassenverkehr_2008.pdf (13-04-2012)

City of Duesseldorf (2003) VEP –

Verkehrsentwicklungsplan LandeshauptstadtDüsseldorf - Teil 1

http://www.duesseldorf.de/verkehrsmanagement/pdf/vep_teil1.pdf (27-04-2012)

City of Duesseldorf (2003) VEP –Verkehrsentwicklungsplan Landeshauptstadt

Düsseldorf - Teil 2http://www.duesseldorf.de/verkehrsmanagement/pdf/vep2_bro.pdf (27-04-2012)

City of Duesseldorf (2003) VEP –Verkehrsentwicklungsplan LandeshauptstadtDüsseldorf - Teil 4

http://www.duesseldorf.ihk.de/linkableblob/1286722 /.3./data/M3_

Verkehrsentwicklungsplan_Duesseldorf-data.pdf ;jsessionid=D17CBC09C423F91547746ACCFC857618.repl1(27-04-2012)

City of Duesseldorf (year of publicationunknown), ViD – VerkehrssystemmanagementIn Düsseldorf - Das Projekt im Überblick

http://www.duesseldorf.de/verkehrsmanagement/pdf/vidinfobrosch.pdf

(27-04-2012)

City of Gent (2009), Mobiliteit – Zo veelmogelijk zonder auto http://www.gent.be/docs/Departement%20Stafdiensten/Dienst%20Voorlichting/Stadsmagazine2009/februari%202009/17_18_STAD_FEB_2009.pdf (13-04-2012)

http://www.brussel.be/dwnld/26403717/PCM_BXL_Rapport_phase2_v3_fev2012_NL_site.pdf


http://www.kk.dk/sitecore/content/Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/SubsiteFrontpage/LivingInCopenhagen/CityAndTraffic/CityOfCyclists/~/media/F49DA3FEB9164164AA56B737DC6889A1.ashx





http://www.kk.dk/FaktaOmKommunen/PublikationerOgRapporter/Publikationer/tmf_publikationer.aspx?mode=detalje&id=674








http://www.kk.dk/sitecore/content/Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/SubsiteFrontpage/LivingInCopenhagen/~/media/BF3A66B079AB4ACAA6CA167ECF151EB3.ashx




http://www.dresden.de/media/pdf/presseamt/Strassenverkehr_2008.pdf



http://www.duesseldorf.de/verkehrsmanagement/pdf/vep_teil1.pdf


http://www.duesseldorf.de/verkehrsmanagement/pdf/vep2_bro.pdf


http://www.duesseldorf.ihk.de/linkableblob/1286722


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/M3_Verkehrsentwicklungsplan_Duesseldorf-data.pdf



http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/D17CBC09C423F91547746ACCFC857618.repl




http://www.gent.be/docs/Departement


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/17_18_STAD_FEB_2009.pdf

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/17_18_STAD_FEB_2009.pdf









































City of Hannover - Verkehrsentwicklungsplan

‘Pro Klima’ der Region Hannover http://www.hannover.de/data/download/RH/wimo/oepnv/vep_pro_klima_beschlussfassung.pdf (16-04-2012)

City of Katowice (2005) ‘KATOWICE 2020 - the

city development strategy’

www.um.katowice.pl/en/files/katowice2020.rtf

(16-04-2012)

City of London, ‘The Mayors London Plan’ (2011)http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/londonplan (07-02-2012)

City of London (2010), ‘The Mayors Transport

Strategy’ http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/mayors-

transport-strategy(07-02-2012)

City of Lille (2006)- ‘le Pédibus’

http://mediatheque.mairie-lille.fr/lille/fr/Education_-_Enseignement/Brochures/pedibus2006web.pdf?52521101082011=(02-05-2012)

City of Mannheim (2010 ), ’21-Punkte-Programm

für mehr Radverkehr’http://www.mannheim.de/sites/default/files/page/9804/flyer_plakat_21_pkt_programm.pdf (02-05-2012)

City of Munich (2005) ‘Shaping the future ofMunich - PERSPECTIVE MUNICH – Strategies,

Principles, Projects’

www.muenchen.de/rathaus/dms/Home/Stadtverwaltung /.../englisch.pdf

(17-04-2012)

City of Nuremberg (2006) Nuremberg Facts &

Figures, Transport (Chapter 5)

http://www.nuernberg.de/imperia/md/content/internet/ref7/wiv/factsandfigures_web.pdf (17-04-2012)

City of Nuremberg (2010) BaureferatVerkehrsplanungsamt - Querschnittszählung 2010

http://nuernberg.de/imperia/md/verkehrsplanung/dokumente/qz_bericht_2010_web.pdf (17-04-2012)

City of Örebro (year of publication unknown)Major Investment in biogas and public transportin Örebro, Sweden

http://www.orebro.se/download/18.43db82a312ce578ff3c80002173/Biogas+Fact+Sheet+English.

pdf (07-05-2012)

City of Palermo (year of publication unknown)Lo scenario programmatico sul tema della mobilitàe trasporto pubblico

http://www.comune.palermo.it/comune/settori/urbanistica/vas/programma/capitolo_2_sostenibilita_territoriale.pdf (18-04-2012)

City of Prague (2008) Prague Strategic Plan -update 2008

http://www.urm.cz/uploads/assets/soubory/data/strategicky_plan/Angl2008_web.pdf (23-04-2012)

http://www.hannover.de/data/download/RH/wimo/oepnv/vep_pro_klima_beschlussfassung.pdf



http://www.um.katowice.pl/en/files/katowice2020.rtf

http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/londonplan


http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/mayors

http://mediatheque.mairie-lille.fr/lille/fr/Education_-_Enseignement/Brochures/pedibus2006web.pdf?52521101082011=



http://www.mannheim.de/sites/default/files/page/9804/flyer_plakat_21_pkt_programm.pdf


http://www.muenchen.de/rathaus/dms/Home/Stadtverwaltung


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/englisch.pdf

http://www.nuernberg.de/imperia/md/content/internet/ref7/wiv/factsandfigures_web.pdf



http://nuernberg.de/imperia/md/verkehrsplanung/dokumente/qz_bericht_2010_web.pdf



http://www.orebro.se/download/18.43db82a312ce578ff3c80002173/Biogas


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/English.pdf


http://www.comune.palermo.it/comune/settori/urbanistica/vas/programma/capitolo_2_sostenibilita_territoriale.pdf



http://www.urm.cz/uploads/assets/soubory/data/strategicky_plan/Angl2008_web.pdf

















http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/englisch.pdf








http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/mayors



http://www.um.katowice.pl/en/files/katowice2020.rtf







City of Sofia/ EIB/ POVVIK AD (2011)‘Stakeholder Engagement Plan for the SofiaIntegrated Urban Transport Project’

http://www.sofia.bg/pictss/ei/SOFIA%20IUTP%20SEP%20-%20Final%20-%202011-04-20%20EN.pdf (27-04-2012)

City of Stockholm (2009) ‘Stockholm City Plan -

Summary, May 2009’http://international.stockholm.se/Future-Stockholm/Stockholm-City-Plan/(27-04-2012)

City of The Hague (2010) Haagse Nota Mobiliteit- ontwerp

http://zbs.denhaag.nl/risdoc/2011/RIS180762A.PDF(23-04-2012)

City of Utrecht (2005) Gemeentelijk verkeers- envervoerplan Utrecht 2005-2020

http://www.vng.nl/Praktijkvoorbeelden/RWMV/2005/187547.pdf (23-04-2012)

City of Utrecht (2011) Utrecht: aantrekkelijk

en bereikbaar - Ambitiedocument http://www.goudappel.nl/media/files/uploads/

Utrechtaantrekkelijkenbereikbaar.pdf (23-04-2012)

City of Vienna (2008) ‘A face-lift for the

pedestrian area in Vienna’s city centre!’

http://www.wien.gv.at/english/transportation/road-construction/pdf/fuzo-brochure.pdf (27-04-2012)

Dutch Government (2010) ‘Randstad 2040 is nu’!

http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/rapporten/2010/06/01/randstad-2040-is-nu-sterke-steden-sterke-randstad-sterk-nederland.html(23-04-2012)

ELTIS (2011), ‘The State of the Art of SustainableUrban Mobility Plans in Europe ‘

http://mobilityplans.eu/docs/file/eltisplus_state-of-the-art_of_sumps_in_europe_july2011.pdf (06-02-2012)

ERTRAC (2011), ‘European Research Roadmap- Towards an integrated urban mobility system(Draft)’

http://www.ertrac.org/pictures/downloadmanager/6/42/towards_an_

integrated_urban_mobility_system_51.pdf (02-05-2012)

Eures (2004), ‘Mobilitätsreport Saar-Lor-Lux-

Rheinland-Pfalz’

http://www.info-institut.de/eures/publications/mobilitaetsreport_sllr.pdf 23-04-2012

European Commission (2011), ‘’

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_312_en.pdf (07-02-2012)

European Commission - Transport ResearchKnowledge Centre (2009), ‘Land Use Planning -Thematic Research Summary’

http://www.transport-research.info/Upload/Documents/201002/20100215_150102_95903_TRS%20Land%20use%20planning.pdf

(07-02-2012)

http://www.sofia.bg/pictss/ei/SOFIA

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20EN.pdf

http://international.stockholm.se/Future-Stockholm/Stockholm


http://zbs.denhaag.nl/risdoc/2011/RIS180762A.PDF


http://www.vng.nl/Praktijkvoorbeelden/RWMV/2005/187547.pdf


http://www.goudappel.nl/media/files/uploads/Utrechtaantrekkelijkenbereikbaar.pdf



http://www.wien.gv.at/english/transportation/road-construction/pdf/fuzo-brochure.pdf


http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/rapporten/2010/06/01/randstad-2040-is-nu-sterke-steden-sterke-randstad-sterk-nederland.html







http://www.ertrac.org/pictures/downloadmanager/6/42/towards_an_integrated_urban_mobility_system_51.pdf



http://www.info-institut.de/eures/publications/mobilitaetsreport_sllr.pdf


http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_312_en.pdf


http://www.transport-research.info/Upload/Documents/201002/20100215_150102_95903_TRS



http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20planning.pdf

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20planning.pdf





























http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20EN.pdf

http://www.sofia.bg/pictss/ei/SOFIA




European Commission (2011) Transport

Statistical pocketbook 2011 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/publications/statistics/pocketbook-2011_en.htm (07-05-2012)

European Commission - Transport ResearchKnowledge Centre (2009)’Passenger - ThematicResearch Summary’

http://www.transport-research.info/Upload/Documents/201002/20100215_145725_14673_TRS%20Passenger%20Transport.pdf (07-02-2012)

European Commission ( 2010), ‘Study on Urban Access Restrictions - final report’

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/urban/studies/doc/2010_12_ars_final_report.pdf (07-02-2012)

European Commission (2010), ‘EU energy andtransport in figures - Statistical Yearbook 2010’

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/statistics/doc/2010_energy_transport_figures.pdf (07-02-2012)

European Parliament (2010), ‘SUSTAINABLEURBAN TRANSPORT PLANS - NOTE’

http://www.trt.it/documenti/Sustainable%20Urban%20Transport%20Plans.pdf (07-02-2012)

EuroTests (2009), ‘http://www.eurotestmobility.net/images/filelib/PRESS%20RELEASE%20-%20Park%20%20Ride%20FINAL_2200.pdf (06-02-2012)

Finnish Ministry of Transport andCommunications (2011), ‘Helsinki RegionCongestion Charges - Summary and Conclusions

http://www.lvm.fi/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=1551284&name=DLFE-11740.pdf&title=Helsinki%20Region%20Congestion%20Charges_English%20Summary (16-04-2012)

Finnish Ministry of Transport andCommunications (2011), ‘National Strategy forWalking and Cycling 2020’

http://www.lvm.fi/web/fi/julkaisu/-/view/1243726 (16-04-2012)

Glasgow City Council (2006), ‘Glasgow

Environment Strategy and Action Plan 2006-2010’ http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/

D382DAAE-00C9-4310-B40E-2DA7219FCD8F/0/GCCEnvironmentStrategy20062010.pdf (13-04-2012)

Glasgow City Council (2007), ‘Glasgow LocalTransport Strategy’ http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1F5B4523-79FA-4654-8C01-F1A24013E690/0/Glasgow_LTS_Post_Adoption_SEA_Statement.pdf

(13-04-2012)

Grand Duché de Luxembourg (2005), ‘IVL - Anintegrated transport and spatial development

concept for Luxembourg’

http://www.dat.public.lu/publications/documents/broch_ivl/broch_ivl_en.pdf (23-04-2012)

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/publications/statistics/pocketbook-2011_en.htm





http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20Transport.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/urban/studies/doc/2010_12_ars_final_report.pdf


http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/statistics/doc/2010_energy_transport_figures.pdf



http://www.trt.it/documenti/Sustainable

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20Plans.pdf

http://www.eurotestmobility.net/images/filelib/PRESS


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20FINAL_2200.pdf

http://www.lvm.fi/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=1551284&name=DLFE-11740.pdf&title=Helsinki%20Region%20Congestion%20Charges_English%20Summary




http://www.lvm.fi/web/fi/julkaisu/-/view/1243726


http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D382DAAE-00C9-4310-B40E-2DA7219FCD8F/0/GCCEnvironmentStrategy20062010.pdf



http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1F5B4523-79FA-4654-8C01-F1A24013E690/0/Glasgow_LTS_Post_Adoption_SEA_Statement.pdf




http://www.dat.public.lu/publications/documents/broch_ivl/broch_ivl_en.pdf

















http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20FINAL_2200.pdf



http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20Plans.pdf

http://www.trt.it/documenti/Sustainable






http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20Transport.pdf









Grand Lyon (year of publication unknown),‘Publications sur les déplacements’

http://www.grandlyon.com/Publications-sur-les-deplacements.521.0.html(17-04-2012)

Greater Bristol Cycling City (year of publicationunknown), ‘The Delivery Strategy (2008-2011)’

http://www.eukn.org/Dossiers/Sustainable_Urban_Mobility/Practice/Realising_a_Modal_Shift_Greater_Bristol_Cycling_City(08-02-2012)

HKL (year of publication unknown), ‘ Vision2015 and Strategic actions 2010–2015’

http://www.hel.fi/wps/wcm/connect/9470d300409b014e8466b43ce15fc85f/3_HKL_tavoite-esite_ENG.VIIMEINEN.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

(16-04-2012)

IBU – Öresund (2009) http://www.interreg-oks.eu/en/Material/Files/IBU+%C3%98resund+Infobrochure(13-04-2012)

Innovation City Ruhr (year of publicationunknown) ‘InnovationCity Rurh - Eine Stadt bautum - Die Klimastadt der Zukunft’

http://nrwbank.de/export/sites/nrwbank/de/downloads/pdf/Veranstaltungen/Wohnungsmarktbeobachtung/NRW.BANK_Kolloquium_2010/Innovation_City_Ruhr_-_Eine_Stadt_baut_um.pdf (27-04-2012)

ITS Vienna Region (year of publicationunknown),http://www.anachb.at/Factsheet_E_A4_kl.pdf

(02-05-2012)

JICA (2000),http://lnweb90.worldbank.org/ECA/Transport.nsf/3b8b3d27260832ec852569fa0059675f/c36f fa75cff6a94685256aef0062e73f /$FILE/SUM_E.PDF(13-04-2012)

KZK GOP (2008) ‘The strategy of KZK GOPactivities for the years 2008-2020’

http://www.kzkgop.com.pl/public_media/fb/files/strony/strategia/strategia_kzk_en.pdf (16-04-2012)

Leeds City Region Partners (2009) ‘Leeds City

Region Transport Strategy - Executive Summary’

http://www.leedscityregion.gov.uk/uploadedFiles/Research_and_Publications/Transport /2.%20LCRTS%20Executive%20Summary(1).pdf

(17-04-2012)

Lille Métropole - Communauté Urbaine (2010)‘Het PDU 2010 van Lille Métropole in 10 vragen’

http://www.lmcu.fr/gallery_files/site/124009/169436/169591.pdf (17-04-2012)

Lille Métropole - Communauté Urbaine (2010)‘Revision du plan de Deplacements urbains de Lille

Métropole Communauté urbaine 2010-2020’http://www.lmcu.fr/gallery_files/site/124009/169436/172149.pdf (17-04-2012)

Lille Métropole - Communauté Urbaine (yearof publication unknown) ’Plan de Déplacements

Urbains de LILLE METROPOLE - Charte MicroPDU’

http://www.lillemetropole.fr/gallery_files/

site/124009/124018.pdf (17-04-2012)

http://www.grandlyon.com/Publications-sur-les-deplacements.521.0.html


http://www.eukn.org/Dossiers/Sustainable_Urban_Mobility/Practice/Realising_a_Modal_Shift_Greater_Bristol_Cycling_City






http://www.interreg-oks.eu/en/Material/Files/IBU



http://nrwbank.de/export/sites/nrwbank/de/downloads/pdf/Veranstaltungen/Wohnungsmarktbeobachtung/NRW.BANK_Kolloquium_2010/Innovation_City_Ruhr_-_Eine_Stadt_baut_um.pdf





http://www.anachb.at/Factsheet_E_A4_kl.pdf

http://lnweb90.worldbank.org/ECA/Transport.nsf/3b8b3d27260832ec852569fa0059675f/c36ffa75cff6a94685256aef0062e73f



http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/SUM_E.PDF


http://www.kzkgop.com.pl/public_media/fb/files/strony/strategia/strategia_kzk_en.pdf


http://www.leedscityregion.gov.uk/uploadedFiles/Research_and_Publications/Transport



http://www.lmcu.fr/gallery_files/site/124009/169436/169591.pdf




http://www.lillemetropole.fr/gallery_files/site/124009/124018.pdf


















http://www.anachb.at/Factsheet_E_A4_kl.pdf




















OECD (2009) ‘http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/25/38246592.pdf (07-02-2012)

OECD (2009)http://www.kk.dk/FaktaOmKommunen/Internationalt/~/media/FD4632CE69FE4809B8AC103890E72FA7.ashx(07-02-2012)

OECD (2007), OECD Territorial Reviews: RandstadHolland, Netherlands 2007

http://www.oecd.org/document/63 /0,3746,en_2649_201185_38267583_1_1_1_1,00.html#how_to_obtain_this_publication(06-02-2012)

OSMOSE (2006), London Low Emission Zone (UK)

http://www.osmose-os.org/documents/168/

London%20low%20em_access_restrict.pdf (17-04-2012)

OSMOSE (year of publication unknown), ‘The

2003 Transport Master plan for Vienna’

http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/PublicDocuments/Vienna%20_PILOT%20good%20practice_.pdf (27-04-2012)

OSMOSE (year of publication unknown), TheCologne Urban Transport Plan

http://www.osmose-os.org/documents/131/Cologne%20UTP%20_PILOT%20good%20practice_.pdf (27-04-2012)

OSMOSE (year of publication unknown), TrafficStrategy and Traffic environment programme2005-2010 of Malmö

http://www.osmose-os.org/documents/161/Malmo_PILOT.pdf (13-04-2012)

Planungsverband Ballungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein- Main (2007), Frankfurt / Rhine-MainConurbation Planning Association – Tasks andGoals http://www.region-frankfurt.de/media/custom/1169_819_1.PDF?1147831811 (13-04-2012)

Planungsverband, Regierungspräsidium

Darmstadt (year of publication unknown),Frankfurt /Rhein-Main 2020 – the Europeanmetropolitan region. Strategic Vision for theRegional Land Use Plan for the RegionalplanSüdhessen

http://www.region-frankfurt.de/media/custom/1169_819_1.PDF?1147831811(13-04-2012)

POLIS (2004

http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/PublicDocuments/The%20Quality%20Bus%20Corridor%20(QBC)%20network%20in%20DUBLIN.pdf (13-04-2012)

POLIS (2008), Cycling points or fietspunten(Flemish Region, Belgium) http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/PublicDocuments/Cycling%20Points%20Or%20

FIETSPUNTEN.pdf (13-04-2012)

POLIS (2011) ‘Member in the spotlights – London:

Towards the next generation of transport paymentsystems in London’

http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/PublicDocuments/2011-01-Member%20in%20the%20Spotlight%20-%20London.pdf (17-04-2012)

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/25/38246592.pdf


http://www.kk.dk/FaktaOmKommunen/Internationalt/~/media/FD4632CE69FE4809B8AC103890E72FA7.ashx



http://www.oecd.org/document/63

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/00.html


http://www.osmose-os.org/documents/168/London


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20em_access_restrict.pdf

http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/PublicDocuments/Vienna


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20practice_.pdf

http://www.osmose-os.org/documents/131/Cologne




http://www.osmose-os.org/documents/161/Malmo_PILOT.pdf


http://www.region-frankfurt.de/media/custom/1169_819_1.PDF?1147831811




http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/PublicDocuments/The


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20DUBLIN.pdf


http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/PublicDocuments/Cycling



http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20FIETSPUNTEN.pdf


http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/PublicDocuments/2011


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20London.pdf

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20London.pdf

























http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20em_access_restrict.pdf





http://www.oecd.org/document/63









POLIS (2011),http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/PublicDocuments/2011-06-dublin.pdf (13-04-2012)

POLIS (year of publication unknown), Memberin the spotlights – The compact bus terminal in

Aalborg

http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/

PublicDocuments/2009-03-MS13-Aalborg.pdf (09-05-2012)

POLIS (year of publication unknown), Memberin the spotlights – Brussels Region, Brussels

Parking Agency: towards an integrated regional parking policy http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/PublicDocuments/2009-02-MS12-Brussels.pdf (13-04-2012)

PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2011) Cities of the future - global competition, local leadership*

http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/government-public-sector-research/pdf/cities-final.pdf (07-02-2012)

Province of Noord-Holland, the Netherlands(year of publication unknown )Towards anattractive and sustainable metropolis in the Dutch

deltahttp://www.isocarp.org/fileadmin/data/congresses/2008/Joint_Session_Bakker.pdf (23-04-2012)

Public Consultation Cities & Regions onCommunication from the Commission - Asustainable future for transport: Towards anintegrated, technology-led and user friendly

system (2009)

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/strategies/consultations/2009_09_30_future_of_transport_en.htm(41 documents in zip-file, 07-02-2012)

REC – (year of publication unknown), http://archive.rec.org/REC/Programs/environmental_policy/PublicTransport/documents/NextStop.pdf (13-04-2012)

REC – (year of publication unknown), http://archive.rec.org/REC/Programs/environmental_policy/PublicTransport/documents/NextStop.pdf

(13-04-2012)

Region Hannover (2010) - Fact sheets publictransport (2010)

http://www.hannover.de/data/download/RH/wimo/oepnv/01_at_a_glance.pdf http://www.hannover.de/data/download/RH/wimo/oepnv/02_Services.pdf http://www.hannover.de/data/download/RH/wimo/oepnv/03_Railways_and_Cityrail.pdf

http://www.hannover.de/data/download/RH/wimo/oepnv/04_Quality.pdf http://www.hannover.de/data/download/RH/wimo/oepnv/05_Finance.pdf (16-04-2012)REV8 (2009), Urban Renewal and RegenerationProjects in Budapest – Jozsef varos http://www.urbanisztika.bme.hu/segedlet/angol/rev8_CorvinPP_090304.pdf (13-04-2012)

http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/PublicDocuments/2011-06-dublin.pdf


http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/PublicDocuments/2009-03-MS13-Aalborg.pdf


http://www.polisnetwork.eu/uploads/Modules/PublicDocuments/2009-02-MS12-Brussels.pdf



http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/government-public-sector-research/pdf/cities-final.pdf


http://www.isocarp.org/fileadmin/data/congresses/2008/Joint_Session_Bakker.pdf


http://ec.europa.eu/transport/strategies/consultations/2009_09_30_future_of_transport_en.htm



http://archive.rec.org/REC/Programs/environmental_policy/PublicTransport/documents/NextStop.pdf








http://www.hannover.de/data/download/RH/wimo/oepnv/01_at_a_glance.pdf


http://www.hannover.de/data/download/RH/wimo/oepnv/02_Services.pdf


http://www.hannover.de/data/download/RH/wimo/oepnv/03_Railways_and_Cityrail.pdf


http://www.hannover.de/data/download/RH/wimo/oepnv/04_Quality.pdf


http://www.hannover.de/data/download/RH/wimo/oepnv/05_Finance.pdf


http://www.urbanisztika.bme.hu/segedlet/angol/rev8_CorvinPP_090304.pdf









































Sheffield City Council (2010) ‘Travel Guide for

Disabled and Older People in Sheffield’

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/caresupport/adults/travel/support.html (27-04-2012)

Sheffield City Region (2011) ‘Region Transport

Strategy 2011-2026’

http://www.syltp.org.uk/documents/SCRTransportStrategy.pdf (27-04-2012)

Solidarité (year unknown) Building Sustainable

Cities in Europe - bases and actions

http://www.pourlasolidarite.eu/IMG/pdf/Etude_Villes_Durables_Courte_EN-2.pdf (07-02-2012)

South Yorkshire (2011) ‘South Yorkshire LTP3Implementation Plan 2011-2015’

http://www.syltp.org.uk/documents/LTP3ImplementationPlan.pdf (27-04-2012)

TELLUS (year of publication unknown),http://ebookbrowse.com/tellus-final-evaluation-report-part-ii-bucharest-

pdf-d188527940(13-04-2012)

Transport for Greater Manchester - Local

Transport Plan

http://www.tfgm.com/ltp3 /(17-04-2012)

Transport for London (2005) ‘Improvingwalkability - Good practice guidance on improving

pedestrian conditions as part of developmentopportunities’

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/

corporate/improving-walkability2005.pdf (17-04-2012)

Transport for London (2010) ‘Delivering the

benefits for cycling in Outer London’

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/benefits-of-cycling-summary.pdf (17-04-2012)

Transport for London (2012) Factsheets

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/4909.aspx(17-04-2012)

Transport for London (year of publicationunknown) ‘More information about the New Bus

for London’ http://democracy.bexley.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=21836

(17-04-2012)

Transport for London TfL (2006) ‘WorkplaceCycle Parking Guide’

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/Workplace-Cycle-Parking-Guide.pdf (17-04-2012)

UITP (2011), ‘Becoming a real mobility provider.

Combined mobility: public transport in synergywith other modes like car-sharing, taxi andcycling…’

http://www.uitp.org/mos/focus/FPComMob-en.pdf (02-05-2012)

UN HABITAT (2010) Urban World Volume 2Issue 5 (2010) - Urban sustainable Mobility

http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/

listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=3075(07-02-2012)

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/caresupport/adults/travel/support.html


http://www.syltp.org.uk/documents/SCRTransportStrategy.pdf


http://www.pourlasolidarite.eu/IMG/pdf/Etude_Villes_Durables_Courte_EN-2.pdf


http://www.syltp.org.uk/documents/LTP3ImplementationPlan.pdf


http://ebookbrowse.com/tellus

http://www.tfgm.com/ltp3

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/improving-walkability2005.pdf


http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/benefits-of-cycling-summary.pdf



http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/4909.aspx


http://democracy.bexley.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=21836


http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/Workplace-Cycle-Parking-Guide.pdf



http://www.uitp.org/mos/focus/FPComMob-en.pdf


http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=3075


















http://www.tfgm.com/ltp3

http://ebookbrowse.com/tellus












United Nations Environment Programme UNEP(2011) Cities Investing in energy and resourceefficiency

http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ger/GER_12_Cities.pdf (07-02-2012)

URBACT(2011), ‘Economic Crisis: Cities’

Responses and Resources’ (2011)http://urbact.eu/fileadmin/general_library/Crise_urbact__16-11_web.pdf (16-04-2012)

VEOLIA (2010), The Veolia Observatory of UrbanLifestyles: Cities For Living - 2010

http://www.veolia.com/veolia/ressources/files/1/4274,Observatory_Veolia2010.pdf (07-02-2012)

Villa de Bilbao – (year of publication unknown)http://www.bilbao.net/noticias/planmov.pdf (13-04-2012)

WORLD BANK (2010), Cities and Climate Change- An Urgent Agenda

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUWM/Resources/340232-1205330656272/CitiesandClimateChange.pdf

(07-02-2012)

‘Warsaw - The first integrated ticketingsystem of Eastern Europe’ (year of publicationunknown)http://acs.e-letter.fr/etudesdecasen/VarsovieEn.pdf (07-02-2012)

‘Bereikbaar Haaglanden. Regionaal ConvenantMobiliteitsmanagement’( 2008)http://www.slimwerkenslimreizen.nl/documenten/27.pdf (06-02-2012)

‘Case Study: Lyon Urban Mobility Masterplan’(2006)http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/archi/programmes/

cost8/case/transport/france-lyon.pdf (17-04-2012)

‘European Mobility Week - Best Practice GuideII 2008’http://www.mobilityweek.eu/IMG/pdf_best_practice_guide_2008_en.pdf (07-02-2012)

‘European Mobility Week - Best Practice Guide

III 2009’http://www.mobilityweek.eu/IMG/pdf_best_practice_guide_2009_en.pdf (07-02-2012)

‘Sustainable Malmö - Making SustainabilityReality’ (2009)http://www.malmo.se/download/18.af27481124e354c8f1800015936/susmalmo_kortis_eng_091118webb.pdf

(07-02-2012)

F Publications/articles online(author known)

Antonin, L. (2011) Shared Mobility: Welcome tothe ‘Age of Access’ http://shareable.net/blog/shared-mobility-

welcome-to-the-age-of-access(07-02-2012)

http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ger/GER_12_Cities.pdf


http://urbact.eu/fileadmin/general_library/Crise_urbact__16-11_web.pdf


http://www.veolia.com/veolia/ressources/files/1/4274


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/Observatory_Veolia2010.pdf

http://www.bilbao.net/noticias/planmov.pdf




http://acs.e-letter.fr/etudesdecasen/VarsovieEn.pdf


http://www.slimwerkenslimreizen.nl/documenten/27.pdf


http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/archi/programmes/cost8/case/transport/france-lyon.pdf


http://www.mobilityweek.eu/IMG/pdf_best_practice_guide_2008_en.pdf




http://www.malmo.se/download/18.af27481124e354c8f1800015936/susmalmo_kortis_eng_091118webb.pdf



http://shareable.net/blog/shared

http://shareable.net/blog/shared

















http://www.bilbao.net/noticias/planmov.pdf

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/Observatory_Veolia2010.pdf










Bakker A., Leijs S., Guit M. (Year of publicationunknown) Rotterdam gaat voor duurzamemobiliteit,

http://www.verkeerskunde.nl/duurzamemobiliteitRotterdam (23-04-2012)

Berveling, J. et al. (2011) Gedrag in beleid.Met psychologie en gedragseconomie het

mobiliteitsbeleid versterkenhttp://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/ienm/documenten-en-publicaties/rapporten/2011/07/21/gedrag-in-beleid.html (07-02-2012)

Bobbio, R. & Diano, D. (2009) Smart Tracks. Astrategy for sustainable mobility in Naples, 45thISOCARP Congress 2009http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_

studies/1423.pdf (08-02-2012)

Boos, V. & Muno, A. (2011) European Mobility

Week - Best Practice Guide V 2011

http://www.mobilityweek.eu/IMG/pdf_best_practice_guide_2011_en.pdf (07-02-2012)

Bührmann, S. (2008) Bicycles as public-individual

transport – European Developments (MeetbikeConference, Dresden 2008)

http://www.gtkp.com/assets/uploads/20091127-150125-6592-Meetbike_article_Buehrmann_040408.pdf (07-02-2012)

Bührmann, S. et al (2011), Guidelines. Developingand Implementing a Sustainable Urban MobilityPlan.

http://www.eltis.org/docs/sump_library/SUMP_guidelines_web00.pdf (07-02-2012)

Byers, A. (2006) SUTP DEVELOPMENT IN

EUROPE D1.2 ROADMAP DEVELOPMENT IN 4PILOT CITIES

http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=d1.2%20%20roadmap%20development%20in%204%20pilot%20cities&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pilot-transport.org%2Ffileadmin%2FWP1%2FDel1_2_

Roadmaps_4_cities_v3_0.doc&ei=9jExT8rcE8OW-waYnam1BQ&usg=AFQjCNHLb7nT4GRBLPDWfK4W_HVap9RsYA(07-02-2012)

Chandler, E.K. (2009), Huffington Posthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/bicing-barcelonas-communa_n_197050.html?view=print (13-04-2012)

Chorianopoulos, I. et al (2010) Planning,competitiveness and sprawl in the Mediterraneancity: The case of Athens, Cities, 27:249-259http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275110000193(13-04-2012)

Christofakis, M. (2004), Athens metropolitanarea: New challenges and development planning,

City Futures Conference, July 8 – 10, 2004,Chicagohttp://www.uic.edu/cuppa/cityfutures/papers/webpapers/cityfuturespapers/session7_6/7_6athens.pdf (08-02-2012)

Deloukas, A. (year of publication unknown )European Transport Conference 2005 http://etcproceedings.org/paper/public-transport-

demand-and-revenues-in-athens-the-introduction-of-metro-and-n(08-02-2012)

http://www.verkeerskunde.nl/duurzamemobiliteitRotterdam


http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/ienm/documenten-en-publicaties/rapporten/2011/07/21/gedrag-in-beleid.html



http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/1423.pdf




http://www.gtkp.com/assets/uploads/20091127-150125-6592-Meetbike_article_Buehrmann_040408.pdf



http://www.eltis.org/docs/sump_library/SUMP_guidelines_web00.pdf


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/bicing-barcelonas-communa_n_197050.html?view=print



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275110000193


http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/cityfutures/papers/webpapers/cityfuturespapers/session7_6/7_6athens.pdf



http://etcproceedings.org/paper/public





























DeRobertis, M. (2010) ‘Land Development and

Transportation Policies for Transit-OrientedDevelopment in Germany and Italy: Five CaseStudies’

http://www.gmfus.org/wp-content/files_mf //galleries/ct_publication_attachments/CDP_DeRobertis_Land_Development_and_Transportation.pdf (27-04-2012)

Dings, J. (2009) CO2 emissions from transport inthe EU27An analysis of 2007 data submitted tothe UNFCCC

http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/default/files/media/2009%2007_te_ghg_inventory_analysis_2007_data.pdf (07-02-2012)

Dufour, D. (year of publication unknown)

http://www.urbanicity.org/Site/Articles/default.aspx(07-02-2012)

Eliasson, J. & Beser Hugosson, M. (2006), http://www.etcproceedings.org/paper/the-stockholm-congestion-charging-system-an-overview-of-the-effects-after-six-(06-02-2012)

Faling, W. et al (2006), Creative Densificationhttp://www.reurba.org/downloads/061120-CreativeDensdef.pdf (06-02-2012)

Freemark, Y. (2011), Car Sharing 2.0 LeapsForward in Paris,

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/10/04/car-sharing-2-0-leaps-forward-in-paris/

(23-04-2012)

Giffinger, R. et al (2007), Smart cities. Ranking of

European medium-sized cities

http://www.smart-cities.eu/download/smart_cities_final_report.pdf (06-02-2012)

Goulas, G. et al (2001) 7th InternationalConference on Environmental Science andTechnology Ermoupolis, Syros island, Greece –

Sept. 2001http://environ.chemeng.ntua.gr/en/UserFiles/File/Evaluation%20of%20transport%20policies%20in%20Athens.pdf (08-02-2012)

Harper, L. & Muno, A. (2010) European MobilityWeek - Best Practice Guide IV 2010


(07-02-2012)

Knapp W., Schmitt P. (2005) ‘RhineRuhr Analysisof Policy Documents & Policy Focus Groups’

(POLYNET Action 3.1)http://www.polynet.org.uk/3_1_rruhr.pdf (27-04-2012)Knapp, W. & Schmitt, P. (2003) Re-structuring

Competitive Metropolitan Regions in North-westEurope:On Territory and Governance

http://www.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/Refereed%20articles/refereed6.pdf (07-02-2012)

Kodransky, M. & Hermann, G. (2001) Europe’sParking U-Turn: From Accommodation toRegulation

http://www.slideshare.net/transportsdufutur/european-parking-uturn(07-02-2012)

http://www.gmfus.org/wp-content/files_mf

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/CDP_DeRobertis_Land_Development_and_Transportation.pdf


http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/default/files/media/2009


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/2007_te_ghg_inventory_analysis_2007_data.pdf


http://www.urbanicity.org/Site/Articles/default.aspx


http://www.etcproceedings.org/paper/the


http://www.reurba.org/downloads/061120-CreativeDensdef.pdf


http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/10/04/car


http://www.smart-cities.eu/download/smart_cities_final_report.pdf


http://environ.chemeng.ntua.gr/en/UserFiles/File/Evaluation


http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20Athens.pdf



http://www.polynet.org.uk/3_1_rruhr.pdf

http://www.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/Refereed%20articles/refereed6.pdf


http://www.slideshare.net/transportsdufutur/european






http://www.polynet.org.uk/3_1_rruhr.pdf



http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_7/20Athens.pdf



















http://www.gmfus.org/wp-content/files_mf




Krzywkowska, G. (ed.) (2004), Next stop:

sustainable transport - A Survey of PublicTransport in Six Cities of Central and EasternEurope

http://www.thepep.org/clearinghouse/docfiles/nextstop_smaller_1.pdf (07-02-2012)

Metz, F. (2011), Campagnes, hebben die zin?

http://kpvv-reisgedrag.blogspot.com/2011/10/campagnes-hebben-die-zin.html#more(07-02-2012)

Muno, A. & Janssen, U. (2010) European Mobility

Week - Handbook 2010

http://www.mobilityweek.eu/IMG/pdf_2010_handbook.pdf (07-02-2012)

Newman, P. (2006), Model Cities: Europe. Zurich,Copenhagen, Stockholm And Freiburg - EuropeanTransit Oriented Planning At its Best,

http://www.istp.murdoch.edu.au/ISTP/casestudies/Case_Studies_Asia/european/european.html(06-02-2012)

Pucher, J. and Buehler, R. (2007) At the Frontiersof Cycling: Policy Innovations in the Netherlands,

Denmark, and Germanyhttp://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Frontiers.pdf (07-02-2012)

Raeva, D. (2007) ‘Mobility Management:Sustainability Option for Sofia s Urban Transport

Policy? Learning from the experience of Lund andexploring its transferability to Sofia’

https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func

=downloadFile&recordOId=1325428&fileOId=1325429(27-04-2012)

Rosenthal, E. (2011) Across Europe, Irking Drivers

Is Urban Policy

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/science/earth/27traffic.html?_r=1

(07-02-2012)

Rüsch, S (2009) ‘Planning strategies in Vienna/Austria to raise the rate of bike traffic - ThePromotion of cycling in the city using the

example of the exhibition fahr_rad_in_wienhttp://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/1500.pdf (27-04-2012)

Vilikovská Z. (2010) http://spectator.sme.sk/articles/view/38470/10/bratislava_and_vienna_to_sign_agreement_on_cooperation.html (27-04-2012)

Warren, J. (2008), Transform Scotland, Towardsa healthier economy – Why investing insustainable transport makes economic sensehttp://www.transformscotland.org.uk/towards-a-healthier-economy.aspx(13-04-2012)

Wegener, M. & Fürst, F. (1999) Land-Use

Transport Interaction: State of the Art

http://www.raumplanung.tu-dortmund.de/

irpud/fileadmin/irpud/content/documents/publications/ber46.pdf (07-02-2012)

Wolfram, M. & Bührmann, S. (2007) SustainableUrban Transport Planning -SUTP Manual -Guidance for stakeholders 2007

http://pilot-transport.org/fileadmin/WP2/Pilot_EN_WEB.pdf (07-02-2012)

http://www.thepep.org/clearinghouse/docfiles/nextstop_smaller_1.pdf


http://kpvv-reisgedrag.blogspot.com/2011/10/campagnes-hebben-die-zin.html


http://www.mobilityweek.eu/IMG/pdf_2010_handbook.pdf


http://www.istp.murdoch.edu.au/ISTP/casestudies/Case_Studies_Asia/european/european.html



http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Frontiers.pdf


https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1325428&fileOId=1325429







http://spectator.sme.sk/articles/view/38470/10/bratislava_and_vienna_to_sign_agreement_on_cooperation.html



http://www.transformscotland.org.uk/towards-a-healthier-economy.aspx


http://www.raumplanung.tu-dortmund.de/irpud/fileadmin/irpud/content/documents/publications/ber46.pdf



http://pilot-transport.org/fileadmin/WP2/Pilot_EN_WEB.pdf

































G Scientific articles

Anable J. (2005), ‘Complacent Car Addicts’ or‘Aspiring Environmentalists’? Identifying travelbehaviour segments using attitude theory’, inTransport Policy, 12(1), pp. 65-78.

Anable J., Schwanen T., Banister D. (2012),‘Climate Change, Energy and Transport: The

Interviews. Scanning Study Policy BriefingNote 1’ in Transport Studies Unit, University ofOxford / Centre for Transport Research, Universityof Aberdeen [available at: www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/ccet]

Andreev P., Salomon I., Pliskin N. (2010),‘Review: State of teleactivities’, inTransportation Research Part C: EmergingTechnologies, 18(1), pp. 3-20.

Bagley M.N., Mokhtarian P.L. (2002), ‘Theimpact of residential neighborhood typeon travel behavior: a structural equationsmodeling approach’, in Annals of RegionalScience, 36(2), pp. 279-297.

Bamberg S., Ajzen I., Schmidt P. (2003), ‘Choiceof travel mode in the theory of plannedbehavior: the roles of past behavior, habit, and

reasoned action’, in Basic and Applied SocialPsychology, 25(3), pp. 175-188.

Bamberg S., Schmidt P. (2001), ‘Theory-drivenevaluation of an intervention to reduce theprivate car-use’, in Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 31(6), pp. 1300-1329.

Banister D., Stead D. (2004), ‘Impact ofinformation and communications technology

on transport’, in Transport Reviews, 24(5), pp.611-632.

Banister D. (2008), ‘The sustainable mobilityparadigm’, in Transport Policy, 15, pp. 73-80.

Binswanger M. (2001), ‘Technological progressand sustainable development: What about therebound effect?’, in Ecological Economics, 36 (1),pp. 119-132.

Burlando C., Canali C., Musso E., Pelizzoni C.

(2000), ‘Policies for sustainable mobility inItalian cities’, in Urban Transport VI, 2000,pp.277-286

Button K. (1998), ‘The good, the bad and theforgettable – or lessons the US can learnfrom European transport policy’, in Journal ofTransport Geography, 6(4), pp. 285-294.

Cairns S., Sloman L., Newson C., Anable J.,

Kirkbride A., Goodwin P., (2008), ‘SmarterChoices: Assessing the Potential to AchieveTraffic Reduction Using ‘Soft Measures’, inTransport Reviews, 28(5), pp. 593-618.

Camagni R. et al (2002), ‘Urban mobility andurban form: the social and environmentalcosts of different patterns of urban expansion’,in Ecological Economics, 40, pp. 199–216.

Cao X., Mokhtarian P.L., Handy S.L. (2009),‘Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behaviour: A focus onempirical findings’, in Transport Reviews, 29(3),pp. 359-395.

Carrasco J.A., Miller E.J. (2006), ‘Exploring thepropensity to perform social activities: a socialnetwork approach’ in Transportation, 33(5), pp.463-480.

Dugundji E., Walker J. (2005), ‘Discretechoice with social and spatial network

http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/ccet







interdependencies: an empirical exampleusing mixed GEV models with field and ‘panel’effects’, in Transportation Research Record, 1921,pp. 70-78.

Gerber P., Carpentier S., Petit S., Pigeron-PirothI. (2008) ‘Mobilités quotidienne et résidentielleau Luxembourg : un aperçu à traversl’outilMobilluxWeb’, in Population & Territoire No. 13,

pp. 2-16.

Goldman T., Gorham R. (2006), ‘SustainableUrban Transport: Four innovative directions’,in Technology in Society, 28(1-2), pp. 261-273.

Greene D.L., Wegener M. (1997), ‘Sustainabletransport’, in Journal of Transport Geography,5(3), pp.177-190.

Gunningham N., Sinclair, D. (1999), ‘RegulatoryPluralism: Designing Policy Mixes forEnvironmental Protection’, in Law & Policy,21(1), pp. 49-76.

Hajer M., Kesselring S. (1999) ‘Democracyin the Risk Society? Learning from the NewPolitics of Mobility in Munich’, in Environmental

Politics, 1999(3), pp.1-23.

Handy S.L., Clifton K.J. (2001), ‘Local shoppingas a strategy for reducing automobile travel’,in Transportation, 28(4), pp. 317-346.

Handy S.L., Cao X., Mokhtarian P.L. (2005),‘Correlation or causality between the builtenvironment and travel behavior? Evidencefrom Northern California’, in TransportationResearch Part D: Transport and Environment,10(6), pp. 427-444.

Hensher D. (1993), ‘Socially andEnvironmentally appropriate urban futures forthe motor car’, in Transportation, 20(1), pp. 1-19.

Kennedy C., Miller E., Shalaby A., MacleanH., Coleman J. (2005), ‘The Four Pillars ofSustainable Urban Transportation’ in Transport

Reviews, 25(4), pp. 393-414.

Kitamura R. (2009), ‘Life-style and traveldemand’, in Transportation, 36(6), pp. 679-710.

Knowles R. ( 1993), ‘Editorial introduction.Research agendas in transport geography forthe 1990s’, in Journal of Transport Geography 1(1), pp. 3-11.

Loughlin J. (2007), ‘Reconfiguring the State:Trends in Territorial Governance in European

States’, in Regional & Federal Studies, 17(4), pp.385-403.

Lyons G. (2002), ‘Internet: New technology’sevolving role, nature and effects on transport’,in Transport Policy, 9(4), pp. 335-346.

Marsden G., May A.D. (2006), ‘Do institutionalarrangements make a difference to transportpolicy and implementation? Lessons for

Britain’, in Environment and Planning C:Government and Policy, 24(5), pp. 771-789.

Miller E.J., Roorda M. (2003), ‘A prototype modelof household activity/travel scheduling’, inTransportation Research Record, 1831, pp. 114-121.

Mindali O., Raveh A., Salomon I. (2004), ‘Urbandensity and energy consumption: a new look

at old statistics’, in Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 38(2), pp. 143-162.




Mokhtarian P. (2003), ‘Telecommunicationsand travel. The Case for Complementarity’, in Journal of Industrial Ecology, 6(2), pp. 43-57.

Næss P. (2009), ‘Residential Self-Selection andAppropriate Control Variables in Land Use:Travel Studies’, in Transport Reviews, 29(3), pp.293-324.

Neuman M., Hull A. (2009), ‘The Futures of theCity Region’, in Regional Studies, 43: 6, pp. 777-787.

Newman P.W.G., Kenworthy J.R. (1996), ‘Theland use-transport connection: an overview’,in Land Use Policy, 13(1), pp. 1-22.

Nijkamp P. (2006), ‘In search of a transportpolicy research agenda’, in International Journal

of Transport Economics XXXIII(2), pp. 141-167.

Rickaby P.A. (1987), ‘Six settlement patternscompared’, in Environment and Planning B:

Planning and Design, 14(2), pp. 193-223.

Ewing R., Cervero R. (2001), ‘Travel and thebuilt environment’, in Transportation Research

Record, 1780, pp. 87-114.

Pucher J. and Buehler R. (2010), ‘Walking andCycling for Healthy Cities’, in Built Environment,36( 4), pp. 391.

Rayner J., Howlett M. (2009), ‘Implementingintegrated land management in WesternCanada: Policy reform and the resilience ofclientelism’, in Journal of Natural ResourcesPolicy Research, 1(4), pp. 321–334.

Santos G., Behrendt H., Maconi L., ShirvaniT., Teytelboym A. (2010), ‘Part I: Externalities

and economic policies in road transport’, inResearch in Transportation Economics, 28(1), pp.2-45.

Schwanen T. (2008), ‘Managing uncertainarrival times through sociomaterialassociations’, in Environment and Planning B,35(6), pp. 997-1011.

Schwanen T., Mokhtarian P.L. (2005), ‘Whataffects commute mode choice: neighborhoodphysical structure or preferences towardneighborhoods?’, in Journal of TransportGeography, 13(1), pp. 83-99.

Stead D., Banister D. (2001), ‘Influencingmobility outside transport policy’, inInnovation, 14(4), pp. 315-330.

Stead D., Marshall S. (2001), ‘The Relationshipsbetween Urban Form and Travel Patterns:An International Review and Evaluation’, inEuropean Journal of Transport and Infrastructure

Research, 1(2), pp. 113-141.

Stead D. (2011), ‘Best Practices and PolicyTransfer in Spatial Planning’, in Planning,

Practice & Research, (2011), pp. 1-17.

Stough R., Rietveld P. (1997), ‘Institutionalissues in transport systems’, in Journal ofTransport Geography, 5(3), pp. 207-214.

Troy P.N. (1992), ‘Let’s Look at that Again’, inUrban Policy and Research, 10(1), pp. 41-49.

Van Acker V., van Wee B., Witlox F. (2010),‘When Transport Geography Meets SocialPsychology: Toward a Conceptual Model of

Travel Behaviour’, in Transport Reviews, 30(2),pp. 219-240.




Verplanken B., Aarts H., van Knippenberg A.,Knippenberg C. (1994), ‘Attitude versus generalhabit: antecedents of travel mode choice’, in Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(4), pp.285-300.

H Books

Banister D. (2002), ‘Transport Planning’, (Secondedition) London, Spon

Banister D., Stead D., Steen P., Dreborg K.,Åkerman J., Nijkamp P., Schleicher-TappeserR. (2000), ‘European Transport Policy andSustainable Development’, London, Spon

Banister D. (2005), ‘Unsustainable Transport:City Transport in the New Century’, Routledge,

London

Boarnet M.G., Crane R. (2001), ‘Travel by Design:The Influence of Urban Form on Travel’, Oxford/New York, Oxford University

Geerlings H., Shiftan Y., Stead D., (eds.) (2012)‘Transition towards Sustainable Mobility: the

Role of Instruments, Individuals and Institutions’, Ashgate, Farnham

Smart cities – Ranking of European medium-sizedcities’

Hillman M., Whalley A. (1983), ‘Energy andPersonal Travel: Obstacles to Conservation’,London, Policy Studies Institute

Meijers E., Romein A., Hoppenbrouwer E.(2003), ‘Planning polycentric urban regions in

North West Europe’, Delft: Housing and Urbanpolicy studies/ DUP Science

Molle W. (1990), ‘The economics of European

integration’, Aldershot, Dartmouth

Newman P.W.G., Kenworthy J.R. (1989), ‘Cities

and automobile dependence: An internationalsourcebook’, Aldershot, Gower

Owens S. (1986), ’Energy, Planning and UrbanForm’, London, Pion

Pushkarev B.S., Zupan J.M. (1977), ‘PublicTransportation and Land Use Policy’,Bloomington, Indiana University Press

Roberts J., Cleary J., Hamilton K., Hanna J. (1992), ‘Travel Sickness: The Need for aSustainable Transport Policy for Britain’, London,Lawrence and Wishart

Salomon I., Bovy P., Orfeuil J.P. (1993), ‘ A BillionTrips a Day: Tradition and Transition in EuropeanTravel Patterns’, Dordrecht, Kluwer

Stevens H. (2004), ‘Transport Policy in theEuropean Union’, Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan

Wilson A.G. (2000), ‘Complex Spatial Systems:The Modelling Foundations of Urban and Regional

Analysis’, New York: Pearson

I Book Chapters

Aspinwall M. (1999), ‘Planes, Trains andAutomobiles: Transport Governance in theEuropean Union’. In: Kohler-Koch B., Eising R.,(eds.) ‘The Transformation of Governance in theEuropean Union’, London: Routledge, pp. 119-

134




www.eltis.org




Published byEuropean Metropolitan network Institute

AuthorsRies Kamphof LL.M, MASietske Voorn MSc

Lay-outwww.az-gsb.nl, The Hague

European Metropolitan network InstituteLaan van N.O. Indië 3002593 CE The HaguePostbox 907502509 LT The HaguePhone +31(0)70 344 09 66

Fax +31(0)70 344 09 67Email [email protected] www.emi-network.eu



