This article was downloaded by: [North West University]On: 21 December 2014, At: 04:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Transport Reviews: A TransnationalTransdisciplinary JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ttrv20

Impacts of transport on sustainability:towards an integrated transatlanticevidence baseVELI HIMANEN a , MARTIN LEE‐GOSSELIN b & ADRIAAN PERRELS c

a Relate cy. , Inkoo, Finlandb Groupe de recherche interdisciplinaire mobilité, environnementet sécurité , Université Laval , Quebec, Canadac Government Institute for Economic Research VATT , Helsinki,Finlandd Université Laval E-mail:Published online: 20 Oct 2009.

To cite this article: VELI HIMANEN , MARTIN LEE‐GOSSELIN & ADRIAAN PERRELS (2004) Impacts oftransport on sustainability: towards an integrated transatlantic evidence base, Transport Reviews:A Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal, 24:6, 691-705, DOI: 10.1080/0144164042000272470

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144164042000272470

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Transport Reviews, Vol. 24, No. 6, 691–705, November 2004

0144-1647 print/1464-5327 online/04/060691-15 © 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd.DOI: 10.1080/0144164042000272470

Impacts of Transport on Sustainability: Towards an Integrated Transatlantic Evidence Base

VELI HIMANEN*, MARTIN LEE-GOSSELIN** and ADRIAAN PERRELS†

*Relate cy., Inkoo, Finland; **Groupe de recherche interdisciplinaire mobilité, environnement et sécurité, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada; †Government Institute for Economic Research VATT, Helsinki, FinlandTaylor and Francis LtdTTRV374.sgm

(Accepted 16 August 2004)10.1080/0144164042000292470Transport Reviews0144-1647 (print)/1464-5327 (online)Original Article2004Taylor & Francis Ltd246000000December 2004MartinLee-gosselinUniversité LavalLee-Gosselin@crad.ulaval.ca

ABSTRACT Despite a large body of literature on the negative impacts and externalities oftransport systems, it is difficult for policy-makers to infer a coherent message about whetherintervention should be considered, and if so, how to weigh the relative importance of multipledomains of impact. This paper examines the extent to which the results of research on theimpacts of transport in the European Union (EU), the USA and Canada have been trans-lated into improved public policy on sustainable development. Over 3 years, approximately100 researchers contributed to a review that focused primarily on the environment, safety,public health, land use and congestion. There were findings on four main issues. First, theunderstanding of impacts is uneven and, with some notable exceptions, poorly integrated:in particular, where there is no real commitment to internalizing costs, there is little incen-tive to develop assessment frameworks that support decisions about tradeoffs between costs(and benefits) in multiple domains. Second, the sustainability of transport is often viewedfrom the policy side as something that has to be ‘set off’ against affordability, equity andacceptability in a calculus that often treats transport in isolation: a broader view of sustain-ability might better help identify ways that transport can contribute to a decoupling ofeconomic growth from a growth in impacts. Third, some important gaps in the research basewere identified. Broad in nature, they concerned longer-term trajectories, societal learning,increased attention to freight and policy implementation. Finally, activities are suggestedto improve the organization of a transatlantic evidence base that benefits from appropriatelyscaled comparisons between regions of Europe and North America, and which respects thecomplexity of impact domains and their interactions. The highest priority was given tocross-national analyses of transport and land-use policies relevant to sustainability, and toholistic evaluations of actual implementations of ‘wise’ policy packages in urban regions.

Introduction

This paper concerns the role of research to inform academic, political and publicdiscourses on the sustainability of transport systems in Europe and North

Correspondence Address: Martin Lee-Gosselin, Groupe de recherche interdisciplinaire mobilité, environ-nement et sécurité, 1624 Pavillon F–A Savard, Université Laval, Québec, Canada G1K 7PA. Email:Martin.Lee-Gosselin@crad.ulaval.ca

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

692 V. Himanen et al.

America. Apart from unsustainable practices that affect the welfare of currentgenerations, transport has also a growing share in the exhaustion of naturalresources, which threaten to reduce the welfare of future generations. Theexhaustion issue is most prominent in climate policy, which can be expected toaffect transport increasingly, but ecosystem integrity and biodiversity will alsotend to conflict with transport policy at any geographical scale. It is clear thattransport will play an intricate role in any quest for global sustainable develop-ment.

Apart from the dilemma of sustainability in terms of the welfare of current andfuture generations, there is the discourse in economics concerning weak versusstrong sustainability. Adherents of weak sustainability believe that virtually allnatural functions can be somehow substituted either within nature, or with theaid of man-made goods and services. In contrast, those that adhere to strongsustainability believe that the carrying capacity of ecological systems and of theentire planet has absolute limits. Breaking through these limits leads to damagebeyond repair and consequently sustainability policy should be primarily guidedby instruments derived from absolute limits. The weak sustainability view fitsvery well (conventional) neo-classical views on trade and spatial–economicspecialization, and indeed, in current trade policies the conventional neo-classicalview is still the predominant paradigm. In such a context, it is apparently moredifficult to develop comprehensive sustainable transport policies, notably asregards freight transport.

A number of technological responses have mitigated some impacts (EuropeanEnvironment Agency, 2003).1 For example, the introduction of catalytic convert-ers in new petrol cars — together with some other actions like improvement offuels — has reduced transport-related pollutant emissions. Despite this achieve-ment, poor air quality remains a major problem in European cities (EuropeanEnvironment Agency, 2000). Road transport-related emissions per capita aremuch higher in North America (Table 1). This does not necessarily meanuniversally lower air quality in North America compared with Europe.

Unfortunately, greenhouse gas emissions, notably carbon dioxide, cannot be‘cleaned up’ with add-on technology (Figure 1). Even though there is now majorinvestment in alternative propulsion and control technologies that promise totransform the energy characteristics of vehicles (Transportation Research Board,2002), globally the overwhelming oil dependence of the transport sector is notexpected to start to reduce in the next decade (e.g. International Energy Agency2001a, b; Nakicenovic and Riahi, 2002). Although some building blocks of the

Table 1. Road transport emissions and fatalities per capita and per year in the European Union and USA, 1990s

NOx per capita (kg) per year

VOCs1 per capita (kg) per year

Fatalities per year and per 100 000 inhabitants

Mid-1990s Late 1990s Mid-1990s Late 1990s Mid-1990s Late 1990s

European Union 162 126 142 96 124 116

USA 293 307 213 197 165 156

1VOCs= volatile organic compunds 2European Environment Agency (2000); 3http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/toxics.htm; 4European Commission (1997); 5US Department of Transportation, NHTSA(2000); 6European Commission (2002); 7US Environmental Protection Agency (1999).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Impacts of Transport on Sustainability 693

future fuel economy are known, the basic question where the primary energy willbe obtained in the long run remains unanswered (also Fulton, 2004).Figure 1. Carbon dioxide emissions in the EU-15. Source: European Environment Agency (2003, table 4.2)In the domain of traffic safety, social learning plays an important role. Throughregulatory, educational and emergency response interventions, and the adoptionof ‘forgiving’ vehicle and road technologies, societies learn to reduce the amountof trauma that used to increase so rapidly in the earlier stages of motorization.However, the reduction of accidents and their effects needs continuous effort, andduring recent years in many countries, there has been little change in the numberof road fatalities per capita, although they are higher in the US than in the EU(Table 1). Even though it has proved possible to lower the absolute number offatalities and serious injuries, the toll of accidents is still horrible. There areapproximately 40 000 deaths on the roads every year in the EU-15,2 and a similarnumber in North America.

In general, growing demands for sustainable development have expanded thescope of environmental impacts that are attributed to transport — from earlierlocal nuisances or health and accident risks — to include global issues related tothe future of the human condition. At the same time, research has thrown newlight on some of the local impacts, such as the serious health effects of very smallparticles.

A basic conflict within transport policies results from the fact that most of theactions aimed to develop transport, themselves linked to improve mobility, alsoproduce negative impacts. But this a problem not unique to transport, and trans-port policy cannot be treated as if it were the only vehicle for global sustainability.Much complexity and confusion in transport policy-making can be attributed tothe reality that there are still in confusing initial stages of adequate policy designfor global sustainability. It was against this background that part of the Sustain-able Transport in Europe and Links and Liaisons with America (STELLA)

Figure 1. Carbon dioxide emissions in the EU-15. Source: European Environment Agency (2003, table 4.2)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

694 V. Himanen et al.

‘thematic network’ addressed the status of research into transport impacts in theEU, the USA and Canada.3 In this paper, the STELLA methodology is brieflydescribed and an overview is given of the thinking behind four major issue areas.

Methods

STELLA was organized around five thematic ‘Focus Groups’, one of which wascharged to explore the state of knowledge on impacts and externalities. The remitof Focus Group 4 (FG4) was centred primarily on the environment, safety, publichealth, land use and congestion. FG4 had an evolving membership and altogetherabout 100 research and policy experts from both sides of the Atlantic participatedin three seminars: in Helsinki, Finland, in 2002, in Quebec, Canada, in 2003 and inBrussels, Belgium, in 2004. Each seminar consisted of invited and refereed paperswith invited discussants from both the research and policy domains. Additionalinput was received from cross-group meetings, a 1-day conference for seniorpolicy advisors, and a 4-day ‘Next Generation’ workshop in North America foradvanced doctoral students and recently appointed younger academics.

While many of the individual papers presented in FG4 went to publication inacademic publications, the authors of the present paper were charged with thesurveying of research issues and synthesis of discussions. No thematic groupcould do justice in three meetings to the extensive literature that exists on trans-port impacts and externalities. Indeed, the purpose was not to judge all theevidence but rather to collate expert views on its completeness, and to identifyareas of knowledge that could be uniquely improved by transatlantic exchangeand, ultimately, transatlantic collaborative projects. Four central questionsemerged early in the process and were used to structure the group’s findings:

● Are impacts well enough understood to meet the needs of policy-makers?● Why do research findings on transport sustainability often fail to translate into

public policy?● Which are most serious gaps in the research evidence base on the impacts of

transport?● What can be done to improve the evidence base from a transatlantic

perspective?

The remainder of this paper is a summary of the responses of the group to eachissue.

Issue 1: Are Impacts Well Enough Understood to Meet the Needs ofPolicy-Makers?

The five impact domains that the group examined (environment, safety, publichealth, land use, congestion) are interrelated, and each has its own special charac-teristics. For example, traffic accidents represent a continuous risk to humanhealth, but at the same time, environmental impacts may affect health directly4

and indirectly through the deterioration of nature and its capacity to supporthealthy human life. There are also different time horizons over which impacts areassessed. Thus, transport accidents (especially those involving road traffic) forman immediate and serious threat for human health. But in the long run, the opera-tion of transport systems, and the consumption of fossil fuels and other raw

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Impacts of Transport on Sustainability 695

materials result in a build-up of environmental pollution and disturbance, nota-bly through global warming, that may threaten ecological sustainability.

It is more complicated to define relationships between all five issues. Conges-tion is linked to all other negative impacts and it does exist in all heavily usedtransport systems. In a way, it proves that the system is popular and useful.Congestion is not itself a new phenomenon, but its scale — caused by increasedconcentrations of population together with much increased use of motorizedvehicles — is unprecedented. In principle, congestion in a city is a function ofmodal split: a dominance of low-occupancy private vehicles makes congestionworse. This is highlighted by the fact that public transport’s share of urban travelgenerally increases as a function of the size of cities, keeping congestion withinsome limits; but it is also true that in absolute ,terms private vehicle use isincreasing in almost all cities, regardless of size. Policy-makers who considerrestricting car use and improving public transport tend to use alleviating conges-tion as a first justification, e.g. London’s recent area pricing scheme is called the‘Congestion Charge’.

Land use and transport are interlinked: the type and volume of land use deter-mine demand for transport services, and available infrastructure/transportservices influence the degree of spatial concentration and segregation of activities.Because of this mutual influence, land use and transport are often modelledtogether. Examples of the development of integrated land use, transport andenvironmental impact models were presented in the group’s meetings bySpiekermann and Wegener (2004) for Europe, and by Lee-Gosselin (2004) forNorth America. Integrated land-use transport modelling is also divided intomacro and micro approaches. Hunt (2002) presented an approach based on themicrosimulation of urban systems, and Pfaffenbichler and Shepherd (2002)provided a sketch-planning model usable in strategic studies. The reasons behindland use requirements and demand for transport services can be found in humanactivities, which are highlighted not only in the development of activity-basedtravel behaviour models, but also in the modelling of material flows, land use andenvironmental consequences on the EU-wide scale (Stocker, 2004). But thesemodels must deal with an evolving situation, e.g. the ‘Information Age’ hascomplicated the basic definitions of trip and activity types because people todaycan perform part of their work and social interactions outside fixed locations suchas during a journey, at home or at a leisure location.

Part of the group’s review concerned the complex connections between landuse/transport systems and lifestyles, especially the manifold impacts of an ageingpopulation (cf. Van Wee et al., 2002, and Rosenbloom and Ståhl, 2002). The abovecomplexity was also highlighted by the observations of group members aboutrates of change, such as differences between countries and regions in the deploy-ment of new information and communications technologies, and their effects onurban structure.

Compared with the other domains (land use, congestion and environment), itseems that safety and health (where the latter includes lack of physical exercise)are still largely approached in an isolated manner, detached from the otherelements, and optimized only at the individual level instead of also taking socialwelfare into account. Despite a host of assessment uncertainties, there is a consen-sus that emissions from motorized transport are a very important source of nega-tive health impacts, notably in large metropolitan areas (Cifuentes et al., 2000;Davis et al., 2000; Sommer et al., 2000). Consequently, the so-called ancillary

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

696 V. Himanen et al.

benefits of clean transport systems with respect to health costs are substantial.Research concerning links between emissions from transport systems and publichealth has so far mainly concentrated on the impacts of emissions resulting fromfossil fuel use. On the other hand, the assessment of the impacts of noise appearsto have advanced less. Noise, even though taken into account in zoning policies,is still mostly treated as a nuisance. Long-term health effects are studied, butknowledge is still very much incomplete, while application of insights in policyimplementation is by no means common practice. Noise was mentioned in thegroup’s meetings, but never extensively discussed.

The notion of safety was extended to security, notably in public transport andcycling where the elderly, women and children are reported to avoid these modesduring certain times of the day due to (perceived) risks for their personal security(i.e. due to assault). During the first and second seminars, security was mentionedas an undervalued research and policy issue. For example, there are no reliableestimates about the extent to which avoidance results in depressed demand or inrestricted modal choice. However, the scale of security problems—measured asactual losses of human life or injuries—is very modest compared with the tremen-dous toll from traffic accidents.

Insofar as freight transport is concerned, with the domestic distribution ofconsumption goods, there are close ties with the passenger transport perspec-tive, notably with respect to spatial organization and congestion. However,domestic intra-industry cargo flows and export and import flows account forthe majority of freight transport, especially when considering modes other thanroad. This means that the driving forces of freight transport were significantlyoutside the prime focus area of the group. The problem, however, is not merelya matter of a delineation of themes, but that in the key economic sub-disciplineof trade theory, rather conventional versions of the neo-classical paradigmdominate the scene, as already noted above with regard to ‘weak sustainability’.Under that paradigm, the long run perspective will virtually always stipulatethat more specialization by country and region—and, hence, more trade—isbetter. Obviously, within the boundaries of that paradigm, it is hard to find anentry that would allow for net benefits from a comprehensive sustainablefreight transport policy. Next to stakeholder interests, the prevailing trade para-digm is probably an important cause why (comprehensive) studies on sustain-able freight transport are rather scarce. Negative effects of freight transport havereceived increased attention in recent years, but mostly at local levels, such as inthe justification of regulations for road cargo in inner cities (e.g. Anderson,2003). On a larger scale, there is much interest in the implications for sustain-ability of freight mode choice, but the situation is complex. According to Beuthe(2004), transport costs determine mode choice for bulk products, but for morevaluable products, total time in transit, reliability, loss and frequency can beimportant determinants, in addition to costs. Walker (2004) points to changingtrade patterns related to globalization that increase trip lengths and to newlogistics concepts that tend to increase road share; however, others pointed outthat some of these trends may derive from transitory periods of growth associ-ated with recent expansions of trade blocks. Wigan and Southworth (2004) gaveevidence that in addition to traditional freight transport, there is a fast growingshare of goods trips by private cars, vans and light trucks especially in theconstruction and service sectors. This complicates the assessment of impactsattributable to freight transport.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Impacts of Transport on Sustainability 697

Efforts to integrate the environment, safety (and security), health, land use andcongestion into a comprehensive approach to assessing impacts was seen asdeserving more attention on both sides of the Atlantic, but rarely attempted.Notable exceptions were cited for at least some subsets of these domains, such asthe conference reported by Greene et al. (1997) on the full costs and benefits oftransportation. Tradeoffs between impact domains were seen as even more rare.Again, there are exceptions: Greene (2003) provides an excellent example of asustainable transport discourse in which possible safety concerns associated withfuel-efficient vehicles were adequately accounted for.

The notable exceptions were more often than not motivated by a policy to inter-nalize costs as much as possible. A heroic attempt has been made in the EU (Link,2003) to get an overall picture by providing transport accounts as satelliteaccounts of national accounts for all transport modes and for all cost and revenuecategories. This exercise, however, does not give direct advice on pricing policy,as Link (2005, forthcoming) states:

we emphasize that the full (or average) cost information should not beseen as a direct input for pricing policy in form of a fully distributed pric-ing scheme. It is not welfare optimal to internalise full costs, insteadprices have to be set based on social marginal costs. This latter informa-tion can normally not be taken from the accounts, except for some costswhere average variable costs can serve as a proxy for marginal costs (forexample for air pollution costs).

On this first issue, it is concluded that the understanding of impacts is uneven,and with some notable exceptions, poorly integrated. In particular, where there isno real commitment to internalizing costs, there is little incentive to developassessment frameworks that support decisions about tradeoffs between costs(and benefits) in multiple domains.

Issue 2: Why Do Research Findings on Transport Sustainability often Fail to Translate into Public Policy?

The present authors have noticed that many experts agree—based on scenariosand modelling studies—on the main features of the policy packages necessary forimproving sustainability (Banister and Stead, 2004). In the case of urban develop-ment, these main features include transport policies making car travel less attrac-tive and public transport more attractive, and land-use policies to increase urbandensity and mixed land use (Spiekermann and Wegener, 2004). However, thesepolicy packages are not implemented because the public—and therefore policy-makers—accept only the last part of the above transport policies: improvingpublic transport. The first part, restricting car travel, is not accepted. Of the land-use policies, mixed land use is accepted, but a increase of density is generally notaccepted. In addition, the improvement of public transport is quite limitedbecause of shortages in financing. To what factors did the group attribute thispartial disconnect between research knowledge and policy? Four factors, inparticular, emerged during the three seminars:

● The group noted that some interventions in the name of sustainability may notmake sense in an era of change. For example, papers presented in the first meeting

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

698 V. Himanen et al.

underscored the crosscutting significance of the current evolution in lifestyles.In particular, the ageing of populations in many countries of the Organizationfor Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was presented as an exam-ple of a major driving force of lifestyle changes because recent and upcomingcohorts of retired persons will be much more active and mobile than the previouscohorts used to be. The findings alluded also to the significance of lifestylepatterns on travelling (Steg and Gifford, 2003), and provided information on thelimits land use/transport policies may confront. On the other hand, it has to beremembered that ageing inevitably decreases activities and therefore also trav-elling (Pucher and Renne, 2003). The situation of the elderly is very different inthe EU compared with the USA because of the dominance of the private car inthe latter. While elderly in the EU can make half their trips by non-motorizedmodes, the share in the USA is only 9%. Moreover, the supply of public transportis very limited in the USA (Pucher and Renne, 2003).

● Research information does not yet seem to have been very influential in thechoice of sustainability policy mechanisms, especially the choice between stan-dards and market approaches. In principle, the complicated, layered structureof decision-making in transportation requires a balanced package of mutuallyreinforcing instruments. Greene (2003) noticed that regulatory standards havebeen the chief policy instrument for mitigating the environmental impacts oftransport. Various contributions in the group’s second meeting reconfirmedthat adequate pricing, including the internalization of external effects andpragmatic proxies of marginal cost pricing, creates a supportive basis for thetransition towards sustainable transport, however the design of pragmaticpolicies still constitutes a significant policy research challenge. The simplisticway research findings on pricing are sometimes used is revealing. For exam-ple, it is widely assumed that fuel price is responsible for differences in car use(vehicle-km per capita) between countries, as well as the in-use fleet averagefuel intensity (litres/100 vehicle-km). Wachs (2003) and Fulton (2004)discussed the role that pricing plays in the stronger reliance on the private carin the USA as compared with the EU. Table 2 shows that fuel price does notfully explain the differences between the USA and several other countries incar use and fuel intensity. The fuel price in Canada is between the US and EUlevels, while car use comes nearer to the European level. Fleet average vehiclefuel intensity in North America—with only a small difference between theUSA and Canada—is much higher than in Europe and therefore car fuel useper capita in the USA is very high compared with the European level. Butclearly, other factors than those in the Table 2 are needed to explain the effectsof fuel price.

● Even carefully planned and implemented policy actions may provide disap-pointing results because of unexpected human behaviour and/or misjudgedmarket responses. This means that the role of adaptive user behaviour is notfully understood and therefore one can under- or overestimate the impact ofnew policies and technologies that are intended to ‘decouple’ economic growthfrom a growth in negative impacts. Scott (2002) stated that, indeed, currentdemand management strategies are ineffective in reducing congestion — andthat there exists a gap between policy assumptions and travel behaviour. Vari-ous changes in society have also to be considered. For example, once again, theageing population will have special effects on travel behaviour, environmentalimpacts and safety (cf. Rosenbloom and Ståhl, 2002). Unexpected outcomes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Impacts of Transport on Sustainability 699

may also result from longer-term decisions, such as residential mobility. Forexample, multifunctionality of urban space has been broadly advocated asmore sustainable than monofunctional land use (Rodenburg, 2003). On theother hand, Van Wee et al. (2002) showed that people have preferences formodes that in turn influence their residential choices, i.e. people that—a priori—favour public transport over individual transport will prefer particularneighbourhoods. This kind of bias is very difficult to incorporate into forecast-ing. The consequence is that models may overestimate policy impacts, sinceneighbourhoods designed to favour particular modes of transport will have anoverrepresentation of residents predisposed to choose that mode. Schwanenand Mokhtarian (2003) pointed out that even a possible mismatch betweentraveller’s current and preferred type of neighbourhood may provoke unex-pected responses. Analogous observations were made about freight. Anderson(2003) reported that there would be quite different reactions to policy measuresfrom urban freight transporters and shippers, depending on local circum-stances and company characteristics. Richardson (2003) reminded the groupthat policy implementation starts from different points when consideringpassenger or freight transport. Primary influences for passenger transportinclude physical, psychological and social needs, but in freight transport,market forces and government policy dominate. Of course, behind theseprimary influences in freight transport one can find human needs served bymaterial flows. Thus, in both passenger and freight transport, an appreciationof adaptive behaviour in a broader context than transport is necessary to lowerthe risk of overestimating the benefits of policy.

● The disconnect can occur because of the way policies are adopted. The groupacknowledged that technology push and policy-making tend to guide plan-ning and implementation, while the experts work on system design withexpert knowledge and their own insight, experience, skills and knowledge.The planner transforms technical knowledge into the design of the transportsystem. It includes both tacit and explicit knowledge. Other producers imple-ment the design. Over time, design has given varying weight to the differentdomains of impact. However, before a plan is transformed into a real-worldaction, policy-makers have to adopt it. In other words, policy-makers functionbetween the two phases: planning, where planners transform their expertknowledge into a plan, and implementation, when the plan is realized. Of keyimportance is that policy-makers must reconcile sustainability with other (andoverlapping) public goals, notably affordability, equity and acceptability.Research evidence may be swamped unless it helps with the reconciliation.

To elaborate further on the third and fourth factors, an even more fundamentalreason for the continuous occurrence of unintended effects and non-attainedenvironmental targets may be that little attention is given to behavioural aspectsand social processes during the strategic planning stages of transport policyformation. This situation is very similar to that of other problem areas, e.g. energyefficiency and conservation policies (Shove and Wilhite, 1999). In other words,despite ever more sophisticated research, and the reaching out of technology andeconomic development work towards behavioural aspects, transport problemsand identified measures are first framed as technical–economic problems or chal-lenges. Subsequently, behavioural responses are presented in terms of obstaclesand deviations from an ‘ideal’ pattern. This ideal pattern, however, is usually

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

700 V. Himanen et al.

defined in a predominantly rational and uniformly informed world instead of in aworld of numerous disjunctions between convictions and practices, floatingpreferences, etc.

Thus, in response to this second question, it is concluded that research evidenceon the sustainability of transport is not so clearly visible from the policy side,even in areas such as pricing and certain urban development strategies, on whichthere is substantial expert agreement. Part of the problem is that sustainability isonly one consideration as something that has to be ‘set off’ against affordability,equity and acceptability in a calculus that often treats transport sustainability inisolation: the sense of the group was that a broader view of sustainability mightbetter help identify ways that transport can contribute to a decoupling ofeconomic growth from a growth in impacts.

Issue 3: Which Are Most Serious Gaps in the Research Evidence Base on the Impacts of Transport?

The group focussed on sharing of research knowledge on transport impactsbetween Europe and North America and sought to identify areas in which theevidence base was weak or incomplete.

A first area concerned possible trajectories and their consequences. Two contrast-ing visions of sustainable transport have emerged in several studies (OECD, 1997;Sperling, 2003). One could be called a high-technology vision with a safe and effi-cient (hydrogen driven) ‘hypercar’; the other is a ‘low-activity’ or ‘lean-economy’vision with much more attention for the control and management of the demandfor transport, inter alia including reduced car dependency. In reality, thesecontrasting visions are not mutually exclusive. Major shortcomings are claimed forthe high-technology vision: first, that hydrogen is currently produced from naturalgas and therefore the process emits carbon dioxide; and second, the potential envi-ronmental problems related to the large-scale use of hydrogen (Tromp et al., 2003).There is also much scepticism, especially in North America, about achievingsustainability by managing transport demand. The group observed that researchevidence is often not integrated enough to bear on debates about alternativefutures, which may as a result be little more than ideological stand-offs.

Table 2. Some characteristics of vehicle use, fuel price and fuel intensity in North America, Canada, Australia, Japan and the European Union, 1998

Countries

Weighted real fuel price, including taxes (US$/litre)

Vehicle-km per capita (×1000)

Fleet average vehicle fuel intensity (litres/

100 vehicle-km)Car fuel use per capita

(gigajoules/capita)

USA 0.26 13.0 12.0 52Canada 0.44 8.2 11.8 33

Australia 0.51 8.2 11.3 32

Japan 0.55 3.9 11.3 14

European Union1 0.70–1.00 6.0–7.5 7.2–9.2 16–20

Source: Fulton (2004).1Minimums and maximums are from Denmark, Germany, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands andthe UK.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Impacts of Transport on Sustainability 701

Second, the group noted that international comparisons of research findingscould be better exploited as part of societal learning. As stated above, one area inwhich this has played an important role is traffic safety. This learning process isstill ongoing both in Europe and in North America (Table 1). Behind the averagefigures of Table 1, there are still large differences in traffic safety, even betweenthe EU-15 countries and, therefore, it would seem there are opportunities to learnfrom each other. For example, in 2001, the road transport fatality rate per capita inthe UK was about one-half of the average rate of 0.00011 (European EnvironmentAgency, 2003).5 Therefore, if all countries in the EU-15 could improve their safetyto that level, the number of road deaths would go down near to 20 000 per year.However, it took 30 years—from 1970 to 2000—EU-15 countries (almost) to halvetheir road deaths, and since 1995, the rates have improved very little in many ofthese countries. Apart from some macro modelling (notably Gaudry andLassarre, 2000), the research base is not very amenable to drawing lessons forpolicy from cross-national experience.

A third area is simply the imbalance between sustainability research on freightand passenger transport. Even though since 1990 the growth in goods transport issignificantly higher than that of passenger transport, policy design and imple-mentation for the promotion of sustainable freight transport seems to have inten-sified much less than policies for sustainable passenger transport. As notedabove, any more comprehensive sustainable freight transport policy inevitablywill make incursions into the area of trade policy, and generally, this seems still tobe regarded as a no-go area if it comes to sustainable transport policy.

A fourth area, as noted by Geerlings and Stead (2002), is the limited nature ofresearch focusing on the mechanisms and dilemmas in decision-making or inpolicy implementation. They underlined the need to deepen the theoretical basisof policy analysis, and also pointed to the role of public interest groups in societallearning. A related problem is that when policies are developed to mitigate nega-tive impacts of transport in one domain, they may involve different institutionalactors from those taking decisions in another domain, and conflicting policiessometimes result. Efforts to overcome this in the domains of safety and environ-ment are discussed in OECD (1997).

Thus, with regard to the most serious gaps in the transport sustainabilityresearch base, those identified called for greater breadth of research knowledgeand longer time horizons.

Issue 4: What Can be Done to Improve the Evidence Base from a Transatlantic Perspective?

The group made some specific recommendations about comparative studies thatwould be particularly worthwhile within the northern transatlantic community,or for which the community was ideally placed to provide a critical minimum ofexpertise, labour, data and stakeholder relations. The underlying policy issueswere often also of a trans-national nature, such as global climate change.

It was recommended that comparative research in transportation could includethe following types:

● Taking stock.● Analysis of differences (in systems and policies, and their performance).● Transferability assessments.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

702 V. Himanen et al.

● Simultaneous demonstrations/tests.● Model and method applications for different areas.

The purpose of such studies can be academic, as preparation for common policiesand for speeding up learning in policies (thanks to a larger pool of experiences tobe evaluated). Typical application or problem areas mentioned for comparativeresearch were taxation systems, impacts of demographics, instrumental effective-ness, urban freight solutions and containment of urban sprawl.

Complex trans-national issues that may fit into transatlantic policy-orientedtransportation research cooperation were as follows:

● Development of clean transportation systems, including market reform aspects.● Eco-efficiency in global trade and logistics.● Understanding and harmonizing the recognition, perception and handling of

equity (spatial, international, intergenerational, etc.).● Demographics, including migration.

Highest priority was given to two possible research topics:

● A study of the differences in the impacts of transport and land-use policybetween North America and the EU. Because the transport policies and theconsequent traffic patterns and impacts are so different, there must also beprofound impacts in the other public sectors: daily life, well being, economy,etc. Impacts of transport policies in developed countries are usually difficult todetermine (e.g. Banister and Berechman, 2000) and therefore this macroapproach would be most interesting. Some macro models mentioned abovecould also be useful tools in this study.

● Demonstration of ‘theoretically correct’ policy packages in some urban areas.Because the public does not accept all elements of these ‘wise’ packages, thiscan be done only with substantial financial support from central institutions.Such experimental implementations would require a holistic approach thatrespects the complexity of impact domains and their interactions, and a broadreach of the accompanying evaluation research. The most appropriate scale ofimplementation would require careful investigation. Care would be needed toensure that study locations in different countries were chosen to maximize thecomparability of results, using different types of geographical boundary ifrequired to include similar levels of governance. This kind of demonstrationwould also verify the results of both micro- and macro-modelling exercises andalso popularize new approaches for transport policies.

The group further recommended an exchange programme for students, specialistsand policy-makers, perhaps tied to simultaneous urban demonstration studies.

Finally, the group concluded that timing is excellent to use these twoapproaches to bring about a broader and deeper understanding of challenges,visions and methodologies used on both sides of the Atlantic.

Notes

1. The road transport fatality rates were taken from the European Commission DG TREN in cooper-ation with Eurostat, Table 3.6.1, available online at the European Commission website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/figures/pocketbook/doc/etif_2003/pdf.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Impacts of Transport on Sustainability 703

2. EU-15 is composed of the 15 Member States of the European Union before the accession of tenadditional countries in 2004.

3. STELLA was a Thematic Network project of the European Commission’s 5th FrameworkProgramme for Research and Development, conducted with the collaboration and financialsupport of the US National Science Foundation and the Canadian federal Department of Trans-port. Built on knowledge exchange, it sought to support common research approaches from bothsides of the Atlantic and to provide benefits to policy-making bodies and industrial organizations.

4. ‘Directly’ is here meant from a systems viewpoint, while it does not necessarily mean ‘immedi-ately’. Various polluting emissions directly affect the health conditions of those living in theexposed area, even though actually observable health effects (such as respiratory diseases) mayoccur with many years of delay (which causes problems when discussing attribution effects orschemes in a policy-making context).

5. See note 1.

References

Anderson, S. (2005) Urban logistics — how can it meet policy makers sustainability objectives?, Journalof Transport Geography, 13 [special issue edited by A. Perrels, V. Himanen and M. Lee-Gosselin) (inpress).

Banister, D. and Berechman, J. (2000) Transport Investment and Economic Development (London: UCLPress).

Banister, D. and Stead, D. (2004) Visioning and backcasting: desirable futures and key decisions. Paperpresented at the STELLA FG4 meeting, Brussels, Belgium, 25–27 March 2004.

Beuthe, M. (2004) Total logistics cost and quality attributes of freight transportation. Paper presentedat the STELLA FG4 meeting, Brussels, Belgium, 25–27 March 2004.

Cifuentes, L. A., Sauma, E., Jorquera, H. and Soto, F. (2000) Preliminary estimation of the potentialancillary benefits for Chile, in: Ancillary Benefits and Costs of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation. Proceedingsof OECD/IPCC Workshop, 27–29 March 2000, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 237–261 (Paris: OECD).

Davis, D., Krupnick, A. and Thurston, G. (2000) The ancillary health benefits and costs of GHG mitiga-tion: scope, scale and credibility, in: Ancillary Benefits and Costs of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation. Proceed-ings of OECD/IPCC Workshop, 27–29 March 2000, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 135–190 (Paris:OECD).

European Commission (1997) EU Transport in Figures, Statistical Pocketbook (Luxembourg: EC).European Commission (2002) EU Transport in Figures, Statistical Pocketbook (Luxembourg: EC).European Environment Agency (2000) Are We Moving in the Right Direction? Indicators on Transport and

Environment Integration in the European Union (Copenhagen: EEA), available at: http://www.eea.eu.int.

European Environment Agency (2003) European Energy & Transport in Figures. European CommissionDG TREN in cooperation with Eurostat (Copenhagen: EEA). Available online at the EuropeanCommission website.

Fulton, L. (2004) Current trends and sustainability scenarios in transport energy use. Paper presentedat the STELLA FG4 meeting, Brussels, Belgium, 25–27 March 2004.

Gaudry, M. and Lassarre, S. (Eds) (2000) Structural Road Accident Models: The International DRAGFamily (Oxford: Elsevier).

Geerlings, H. and Stead, D. (2002) Integrating transport, land use planning and environment policy inEuropean countries, European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research [special issue ‘Identify-ing Building Blocks of Sustainable Transport — Lessons on External Effects from Both Side of theAtlantic’, edited by A. Perrels, V. Himanen and M. Lee-Gosselin), 2(3/4), pp. 215–231.

Greene, D. L. (2003) Obstacles to policy implementation: fuel economy standards, the rebound effectand safety. Paper presented at the STELLA FG4 meeting, Quebec, Canada, 26–27 May 2003.

Greene, D. L., Jones, D. W. and Delucchi, M. A. (1997) The Full Costs and Benefits of Transportation(Berlin: Springer).

Hunt, J. D. (2002) Agent behaviour issues arising with urban system micro-simulation, European Jour-nal of Transport and Infrastructure Research [special issue ‘Identifying Building Blocks of SustainableTransport — Lessons on External Effects from Both Side of the Atlantic’, edited by A. Perrels, V.Himanen and M. Lee-Gosselin), 2(3/4), pp. 233–254.

International Energy Agency (2001a) Saving Oil and Reducing CO2 Emissions in Transport: Options andStrategies (Paris: OECD/IEA).

International Energy Agency (2001b) Towards a Sustainable Energy Future (Paris: OECD/IEA).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

704 V. Himanen et al.

Lee-Gosselin, M. (2004) The PROCESSUS Network, Canada, a quick guide and update. Paperpresented at the STELLA FG4 meeting, Brussels, Belgium, 25–27 March 2004.

Link, H. (2005) Transport accounts—methodological concepts and empirical results, Journal ofTransport Geography, 13 [special issue edited by A. Perrels, V. Himanen and M. Lee-Gosselin) (inpress).

Nakicenovic, N. and Riahi, K. (2002) An Assessment of Technological Change Across Selected EnergyScenarios. IIASA-RR-02-005; repr. from World Energy Council (2001) Energy Technologies for the21st Century (London: World Energy Council).

OECD (1997) Integrated Environment/Safety Strategies. Expert Group Report, Road Transport ResearchProgramme (Paris: OECD).

Pfaffenbichler, P. and Shepherd, S. (2002) A dynamic model to appraise strategic land-use and trans-port policies, European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research [special issue ‘IdentifyingBuilding Blocks of Sustainable Transport—Lessons on External Effects from Both Side of theAtlantic’, edited by A. Perrels, V. Himanen and M. Lee-Gosselin), 2(3/4), pp. 255–283.

Pucher, J. and Renne, J. L. (2003) Socioeconomics of urban travel: evidence from the 2001 NHTS, Trans-portation Quarterly, 57(3), pp. 49–77.

Richardson, B. C. (2005) Safety, fuel, emissions, congestion, and access. sustainable transportation:frameworks for analysis, Journal of Transport Geography, 13 [special issue edited by A. Perrels,V. Himanen and M. Lee-Gosselin) (in press).

Rodenburg, C. (2003) Land use policies in the United States and the European Union. Paper presentedat the STELLA FG4 meeting, Quebec, Canada, 26–27 May 2003.

Rosenbloom, S. and Ståhl, A. (2002) Automobility among the elderly. The convergence of environ-mental, safety, mobility and community design issues, European Journal of Transport and Infrastruc-ture Research [special issue ‘Identifying Building Blocks of Sustainable Transport — Lessons onExternal Effects from Both Side of the Atlantic’, edited by A. Perrels, V. Himanen and M.Lee-Gosselin), 2(3/4), pp. 197–213.

Schwanen, T. and Mokhtarian, P. L. (2005) What affects commute mode choice: neighborhood physi-cal structure or preferences toward neighborhoods?, Journal of Transport Geography, 13 [special issueedited by A. Perrels, V. Himanen and M. Lee-Gosselin) (in press).

Scott, D. (2002) Overcoming traffic congestion. A discussion of reduction strategies and behavioralresponses from a North American perspective, European Journal of Transport and InfrastructureResearch [special issue ‘Identifying Building Blocks of Sustainable Transport — Lessons on Exter-nal Effects from Both Side of the Atlantic’, edited by A. Perrels, V. Himanen and M. Lee-Gosselin),2(3/4), pp. 317–338.

Shove, E. and Wilhite, H. (1999) Energy policy: what it forgot and what it yet might recognise.Proceedings of the ECEEE Summer Study 1999, Panel I, paper 16.

Sommer, H., Künzli, N., Seethaler, R., Chanel, O., Cherry, M., Masson, S., Vergnaud, J. C., Filliger, P.,Horak, F., Kaiser, R., Medina, S., Puybonnieux-Texier, V., Quénel, P., Schneider, J. and Studnicka,M. (2000) Economic valuation of health impacts due to road related air pollution — an impactassessment project of Austria, France and Switzerland, in: Ancillary Benefits and Costs of GreenhouseGas Mitigation. Proceedings of an OECD/IPCC Workshop, 27–29 March 2000, Washington, DC,USA, pp. 451–479 (Paris: OECD).

Sperling, D. (2003) Energy, vehicle and information technologies: potential paths to sustainability.Paper presented at the second STELLA Focus Group 4 meeting, Quebec, Canada, 26/27 May2003.

Spiekermann, K. and Wegener, M. (2004) Modelling sustainable transport in the Dortmund MetropolitanArea. Paper presented at the STELLA FG4 meeting, Brussels, Belgium, 25–27 March 2004.

Steg, L. and Gifford, R. (2003) Sustainable transportation and quality of life, Journal of Transport Geogra-phy, 13 [special issue edited by A. Perrels, V. Himanen and M. Lee-Gosselin) (in press).

Stocker, A. (2004) Modelling opportunities and limits for restructuring Europe towards sustainability.Paper presented at the STELLA FG4 meeting, Brussels, Belgium, 25–27 March 2004.

Transportation Research Board (2002) Surface Transportation Environmental Research: a Long-term Strat-egy (Washington, DC: National Research Council).

Tromp, T. K., Shia, R.-L., Allen, M., Eiler, J. M. and Yung, Y. L. (2003) Potential environmental impactof a hydrogen economy on the stratosphere, Science, 300, pp. 1740–1742.

US Department of Transportation, NHTSA (2000) Traffic Safety Facts 1998 (Washington, DC: USDOT).US Environmental Protection Agency (1999) National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report

(Washington, DC: USEPA).Van Wee, B., Holweda, H. and Van Baren, R. (2002) Preferences for modes, residential location and

travel behaviour. The relevance of land-use impacts on mobility, European Journal of Transport and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Impacts of Transport on Sustainability 705

Infrastructure Research [special issue ‘Identifying Building Blocks of Sustainable Transport —Lessons on External Effects from Both Side of the Atlantic’, edited by A. Perrels, V. Himanen andM. Lee-Gosselin), 2(3/4), pp. 305–315.

Wachs, M. (2003) Prices and charges as a strategy for sustainable transportation. Paper presented atthe STELLA FG4 meeting, Quebec, Canada, 26–27 May 2003.

Walker, W. (2004) Prospects amd main drivers in the development of goods transport, paperpresented at the STELLA FG4 meeting in Brussels, 25–27 March 2004.

Wigan, M. and Southworth, F. (2004) Movement of goods, services and people: entanglements withsustainability implications. Paper presented at the STELLA FG4 meeting, Brussels, Belgium, 25–27March 2004.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014