Home  Site map  About FIDIC FAQ Contact FIDIC
New  News  Directories  Diary  Experts  Account  Products

<< Back to TALKS page

Monday, 3 September: 10.30 — 17.00

FORUM

URBAN GROWTH VERSUS SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY

Hans Rat
UITP, the International Association of Public Transport

By 2020, more than 60% of the world’s population will live in urban areas and it is estimated that the demand for urban mobility worldwide will grow by 50%. Most of this will happen in the large urban conurbations that already suffer from congestion, an alarming number of road accidents and high atmospheric levels of pollution.

This presentation explores how these major challenges to public mobility and public health can be addressed.

By 2020, almost 70% of the world’s population will live in urban areas and it is estimated that the demand for urban mobility worldwide will grow by 50%. Most of this will happen in the large urban conurbations that already suffer from congestion, an alarming number of road accidents and high atmospheric levels of pollution. If nothing is done to reverse the current trend, the automobile will have to absorb the biggest slice of this additional traffic, with all the conceivable effects this will have.

The past fifty years have already been characterised by the explosive growth in urban population and car use. Urbanisation is now influenced heavily by the car.

Many households have moved out to the ‘green’ suburbs and need several cars to satisfy their mobility needs. The resulting consequences of this urban sprawl are well known: the degeneration of social and neighbourhood links, increased car dependence, longer journeys and growing transport costs. The centre of many cities have been turned into business districts which are unconvivial and, in the evening, abandoned and unsafe.

Cities who have invested in public transport are often stimulated or often integrate this with an invest in improving the quality of life in the city centre. What I seeing with those cities is the success in attracting Young Urban Professionals to live (and play) in the city centre, bringing it to life, often by reconverting old or unused office space. It follows that their inhabitants use the car very little or not at all.

Nonetheless, those cities that have been able to keep their historic centres, and maintain their commercial and cultural activities, are now also threatened by the excessive growth of traffic and congestion. Interurban and intercontinental journeys are becoming quicker but cities themselves are being almost paralysed by traffic.

Sustainable development of urban areas is therefore no longer a theoretical subject but now needs to be put into practice. To ensure access to all the activities, even for those without a car, and respect the environment, car use in cities must be mastered and priority be given to public transport, pedestrians and cycles users - all measures which will improve the quality of life in urban areas.

There has been progress and we can see good examples of regenerated areas giving citizens a greater pleasure and pride in their city heritage, but the process needs to go on. This presentation not only further illustrates the problem, but also offers the models and solutions that can be applied to urban development as well as success stories from around the world.

Before I address this issue in further detail, let me just briefly say a word about the organisation I represent. UITP is the International Association of Public Transport. Its vision is to offer better mobility for all people world-wide. The association represents all of the key actors in the sector:

passenger transport companies, local, regional and national authorities and the suppliers of public transport systems and services.

Located in Brussels and with over 2000 members from nearly 80 countries, UITP’s prime mission is:

• To be the International Network of Public Transport Professionals, bringing together all of the key players;
• To act as the Point of Reference for the Public Transport sector, acting as a centre of knowledge on past and current developments and future trends;
• To house an International Forum for Public Transport Policy, stimulating inter-action and debate, and;
• To be one of the Prime Advocates and Promoters of Public Transport.

In light of the issue I wish to address today, I would in particular like to refer to the results of a very recent and very major study which UITP has carried out on 100 world cities, the Millenium Cities Database.

This study sets out the conditions for achieving a sustainable urban mobility, clearly illustrating the relationships between urban demographics and development models, land-use and public and private transport with the urban economy and environment.

The study clearly shows that pollution and energy consumption per inhabitant from transport dramatically increases as population density decreases.

With urban conurbations which are increasingly showing greater signs of sprawl and the trend of building out-of-town shopping and leisure centres, business parks and residential centres, there is more commuting to do, commuting not easily done by public transport, and this obviously has an impact on the use of energy and levels of emissions being poured out into the atmosphere. Urban sprawl and the resulting car dependency cost a lot to society, consume much energy and contribute to environmental damage.

Indeed, limiting urban sprawl and ensuring a good balance between transport options decreases travel times, leads to energy efficiency and a reduced environmental impact of travel and allows for accessibility for all to urban activities and hence a more dynamic urban economy.

The study concludes that the most efficient cities are those where walking, cycling and public transport are dominant.

And when I say efficiency, I would like to specify that I mean both from the perspective of energy as well as from the perspective of costs (in terms of the costs to the community of personal urban journeys — public transport expenditure, expenditure on road building and maintenance and annual depreciation costs of private cars), and that there is a difference between cities in developing and developed countries.

• The superiority of public transport is undisputed : it consumes 4 times less energy per passenger transported (1.6 times less in the US, 3.7 times less in Western Europe, 6 times less in Central and Eastern Europe and 10 times less in Japan);
   
• In developed countries, public transport is more economical for society as soon as density is above 20 inhabitants per hectare. Consequently, in Europe and wealthy Asian cities any modal shift from the car to public transport contributes to decreasing trip cost. In North America and in Oceania, the advantage of public transport is limited to the city centre or to radial lines to the city centre;
   
• In emerging and developing countries public transport is much less expensive for society than private motorised modes (twice to 5 times less in average, 6 times less in Central and Eastern Europe).

You can see it here in the table that shows clearly that density and modal choice have an enormous impact on journey costs.

Urban sprawl and the subsequent high dependence on private cars do have a high price. For example, yearly transport expenditures in Singapore or in Copenhagen are 3,000 US $ per inhabitant less than in Houston or in Atlanta.

Now I would like to share a few reflections with you on some specific models of urban development and their consequences on mobility and accessibility.

On this table, we can see that in cities with low density such as Houston citizens travel far and often: 25,000 km per year, i.e. 3 times more than in Paris or Munich. But citizens without a car are excluded from urban functions and activities. In Houston or in Los Angeles, there is 2 to 3 times less accessibility by public transport than in Tokyo or Munich.

 
In Tokyo, for example, density is high and rail transport is dominant. Trip cost is very low for such a large conurbation.

Urban sprawl and car dependency are not only expensive options, but also lead to social exclusion of a large part of the population (worst-off households, elderly people, young people...). This does not only apply to American cities, but also to outer suburbs in European cities.

This leads one to wonder whether economic growth automatically leads to waste of money space, time and energy. Not necessarily if well co-ordinated city planning and urban transport policies are implemented. Or if car use is well-controlled and public transport well developed. The examples of Curitiba and Porto Alegre in Brazil and Singapore show that it is possible to accommodate economic growth, protection of the environment and accessibility for all.

Curitiba has set the example for illustrating that when demand for mobility is high but investment funds are scarce, a bus system on dedicated roads provides a good solution.

Singapore has successfully combined intelligent land-use planning, restricting car use and an attractive, high-capacity public transport system which has resulted in a large quantity of people using sustainable modes of transport to travel.

What will be the evolution of dense cities in the Far East where the private car is still not common? Which model will win the battle: Hong-Kong and Singapore or Bangkok?

Bangkok is constantly congested and suffering from severe pollution. It is THE example not to follow. Investments in mass public transport were postponed. The construction of motorways is unsuitable for a city with such a density and consequently it did not manage to cater for the growth of the car fleet.

On the contrary, Hong-Kong succeeded in strictly controlling car ownership and developed powerful metro systems. Indeed, Hong Kong is an untypical case : very high density, low private car fleet for a wealthy city, very well used public transport (82% of trips by public transport, walking or cycling) and low trip cost.

Here the spectacular advances made in computer technology and telecommunications are playing a vital role, offering real-time information, ensuring smooth interchanges between transport modes to solving the problems of fare collection and allocation with smart cards. The Octopus card, the smart card being implemented for public transport on a very wide-scale in Hong Kong, gives access to the entire public transport system as well as to other urban services such as public telephones, parking, shopping and so forth.

In dense cities in the Far East, it is clear that priority must be given to segregated public transport, particularly to metro and railways. In the same time, it is necessary to control car use, which is not compatible with high densities.

This can happen through purchase tax or urban toll like in Singapore, or through very strict parking policies like in Hong-Kong, Tokyo or Seoul.

There are also some very good examples of this in Europe. In fact, in my view, it will become an increasingly familiar phenomena here as well. In London, for example, successful restrictive parking policies were first introduced over 30 years ago and the effect is interesting. If you travel to London today you do not even consider taking a car unless you are sure that you can park it somewhere. Now, the Mayor of London is intending to go a step further and introduce road pricing in and around the city.

Lets also take a closer look at some other European cities where they have made conscious choices to invest in public transport and have achieved a modern and efficient system which is competitive with and sometimes successfully integrates the car, and where the use of public transport is increased by giving it exclusive rights-of-way and coupling it with stringent parking policies.

In Vienna, the capital of Austria, the market share of public transport has risen 10% in 4 years due to a combination of measures leading to a fully integrated mass transit system:

• Common tickets for all modes in one area;
• Interchange stations to encourage and facilitate the change from one mode to another;
• The expansion of metro and suburban rail;
• Modern light rail systems in city streets;
• New tramline to a new housing area, and;
• Personalised marketing in new residential areas.

And in Zurich, Switzerland, the city transport system combines light rail, bus, train and the car. This product is jointly offered between several partners including the local public transport operator and a car rental company. The public transport offer itself is of high quality and frequency. It works on the principle of intensive network of lines, excellent interchanges and short distances between stops. And by using a single ticket, and paying a small supplement you can also hire a car, totally removing the need to own your own.

The cities I mention are all wealthy cities with similar income per inhabitant, However, their urban structures are completely different. This means that income growth does not necessarily imply a development model based on car ownership and urban sprawl.

How have they achieved this? Through vision, political will and a cooperation amongst all of the major mobility actors, the local and regional authorities, the public transport operators, the suppliers of transport systems and the travelling public.

Each of these actors has a responsibility in ensuring the development of sustainable mobility services.

Local and regional authorities need to apply integrated policies combining sound urban planning with traffic and parking controls and priority to public transport and aiming at a more compact and interdependent city.

Public transport operators should be focussing on expanding and diversifying the provision of collective mobility services while enhancing the quality of operations, to meet the demands for not only greater, but more flexible mobility.

Suppliers of transport systems must significantly decrease their life-cycle costs and should be playing a role in maintenance.

In addition, the public should be ready to pay for clean, efficient transport

City dwellers and politicians will have to make a choice between gains in individual space and the endless expansion of conurbations with the resultant mounting dependency vis-à-vis the automobile, or sustainable development founded on a more "compact" and more interdependent city.

And one major lesson to be learnt is that the entire urban sector, notably the urban planners, the transport authorities and operators and the enforcement agencies, must pull in the same direction if urban growth is to be compatible with sustainable mobility.

Investments in public transport alone cannot curb the increasing road traffic. It needs an integrated transport plan including land-use planning, restriction of private car use and the promotion of public transport.

Success depends on a combination of political commitment and operational efficiency. And success breeds success!

<< Back to TALKS page