Centre for Transport Studies

Evolution of urban transport policies:
International comparisons
Prof Peter Jones
Centre for Transport Studies, UCL

Presentation to the IATSS GIFTS Workshop, November 2015

Overview• We can observe an historical evolution oftransport policy in many cities – from caroriented to city-life oriented• This is associated with changing policy
priorities and a culture change in the roleof transport in cities• Ideas illustrated with examples fromseveral cities

Emphasis on meeting the needs ofmotor vehicles

Number and use of vehicles (esp. cars)

Urban transport policy development cycle

Time – Development CycleStage 1: ‘Vehicle’ focus

Emphasis on meeting the needs ofmotor vehicles

Number and use of vehicles (esp. cars)

Rapid growth in Car ownership. Strong
support for new roads and parking
provision – both among wealthy/
powerful early owners and aspiringowners; also seen as a positive sign ofa developing economy/society. Lack ofinvestment in public transport, walking
and cycling.

Time – Development CycleStage 2: ‘Personal
movement’ focus

Emphasis on meeting the needs ofmotor vehicles

Number and use of vehicles (esp. cars)

Consequences of car-based movement becoming
apparent: high pollution, accidents, congestion; poor
quality street environment. Begin to switch focus toimproving (rail-based) public transport, in particular.

Time – Development CycleStage 3: ‘Activity/
Quality of life’
focus

Emphasis on meeting the needs ofmotor vehicles

Number and use of vehicles (esp. cars)

Now main emphasis on efficient and sustainable modes(rail, bus, walking and cycling), and high quality public
realm. Space reallocated from car traffic to other modes
and street activities; some intrusive road infrastructure
removed, or put underground. Car use – and sometimes
car ownership – start to decline.

Time – Development CycleChanging focus on appropriate ‘solutions’
S1: Vehicles

Road capacity andParking

S2: Person trips

Alternative modes andTraffic restraint

S3: Activities

Reducing travel andimproving quality of life
Information, marketingand engagement& attitudes…and changing measures of network performance:
Traffic congestion -> Door-to-door travel time -> Urban quality of life

Changing resident car driver modal shares

Source: Horizon 2020 CREATE projectChanging resident car ownership rates

Source: Horizon 2020 CREATE projectStage 3: ‘Reclaiming the streets’• Some major urban motorways in central city areas
demolished – at great expense• Others put underground (e.g. ‘big dig’, Boston)• Surface street space reallocated to– Walking and cycling– Wider footways for street activities– Parks and open spaces• Parking replaced with buildings and open spaces

Motorway removal:
PortlandSeoul

Stage 1
Stage 3

New paradigm for London’s streets• Traditionally, priority seen as vehicle movement,
on London’s ‘roads’• Mayor set up Roads Task Force in 2013:– Talk of ‘streets’ not ‘roads’– Three key functions, not one:
• Maintaining essential vehicle movement• Encouraging sustainable mobility: bus, walk, cycle• Supporting ‘place-related’ street activity• Recommended new street classification…..

London’s ‘Street Family’ Types

Mapping cities onto the curvee.g. Bangkok, Beijinge.g. Seoul, Tokyoe.g. Houston, Lagos

Why do somecities remain inStage 1?

What underlies these changes?
• Transport policy development cycle primarily
associated with change in attitudes, which affects:– Allocation of funds to roads and parking vs. sustainablemodes– Suitable financing and governance structures (e.g. forpublic transport finance, and enforcement of trafficregulations)– Role models: willingness of key senior officials andmedia personalities to use bicycles and public transport- acceptable in London, but not in Beijing?

What lessons can we learn?
• Change is possible…
– Values can change – particularly when confronted withnegative impacts• Transitions can be expensive:– Huge cost of demolishing/burying roads, and(re)building railway networks; drop in car purchasing• Some cities may be locked in to car-based
patterns, where:– Densities too low for public transport, walking & cycling– Land used patterns too dispersed– Traffic speeds too high!

The Future?

• Is there a ‘Stage 4’ urban transport scenario?

Centre for Transport Studies

Thank you!
peter.jones@ucl.ac.uk