4.1

Conclusions

4.1.1

The sample of cities are all facing similar trends with people moving to the suburbs, having greater access to cars, and generally travelling more. They each have differing structures and land use densities, and legacies of transport infrastructure, planning frameworks and ways of funding transport.

4.1.2

They have all tried to address the problems of rising traffic levels and congestion, but some have been more successful than others. The greatest progress has been made in London where the congestion charge and other measures have led to a notable decline in the proportion of journeys made by car. The other cities that have implemented strict restraints on car use (Barcelona, Singapore and Rome) have also seen positive results. These restraints have been controversial initially, but they have subsequently won favour.

4.1.3

Policies work best when they are integrated together. For example, in the aforementioned cities, the restraints have been implemented alongside improvements in alternatives to the car. These have allowed people to continue to make journeys so that there is no adverse effect on personal freedom or city economies.

4.1.4

Investing in improving the coverage and quality of public transport has been successful in increasing patronage in all cities. Again it is the cities that have integrated these improvements with land use policies, parking restrictions and/or traffic restraint (London, Singapore, Paris) that have seen the greatest impacts.

4.1.5

The study has highlighted the importance of retaining inner city populations and mixing different types of land uses to ensure that it is feasible to walk or cycle to many destinations. Intensifying development around stations has gained public support and also increased the cost-effectiveness of rail investment (Barcelona, Perth, Tokyo).

4.1.6

It is also important to retain continuity in implementing policies. Changes in land use policies and improvements in alternative modes require time to take effect and strategies need to be applied consistently over a period of years. Restraint measures are effective immediately, but they too benefit from sustained application to build resilience to public opposition. In some cities it has been necessary to ‘sell’ the strategy to increase public acceptance. For example, congestion charging in London and Singapore are part of larger strategies to improve travel by all modes, and the parking policies in Zurich were promoted as an opportunity to reclaim space for pedestrians and cyclists and enhance urban design.

4.2

Success Factors

4.2.1

Within the strategies implemented, there have been several key policies and initiatives that contributed significantly to the overall success of the strategies. These are:

• Integrated fares and ticketing – have been a ‘quick win’ in several cities including Barcelona, London, Madrid and New York;

• Improving the reliability of public transport – contributed to increasing patronage in London, New York and Madrid;

• Using private sector funds – has far increased the level of investment in public transport in London, Paris, Madrid and Tokyo, and helped to fund local improvements (workplace parking levy in Perth);

• Parking policies – reducing the supply and charging for use has been effective in all cities and, in addition, removing spaces creates an opportunity to widen pavements or increase land use density;

• Reallocating road space – has enabled some improvement in alternative modes and increased the traffic intensity which has provided a cap on traffic growth in Dublin and New York; and

• Low cost initiatives – have been effective reducing car use in selected parts of Perth (TravelSmart) and Paris (Quartiers Verts).

4.2.2

These factors have been supported by other contextual elements that are not necessarily transferable. These include the availability of high levels of funding for large-scale rail investment programmes, and institutional frameworks that govern how policies are developed and implemented. These have been levers to success in some cities, but do not present barriers to others. For example, whilst having an integrated institutional structure and common political aspirations has stream-lined decision-making in Madrid and Singapore, the split of responsibilities and political affiliations has not constrained the success of Barcelona’s transport strategy.