The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Transferability of Best Practice in Transport Policy Delivery : Final Report

Executive summary

Research objectives

The objectives that were set for this research were to:

• understand the combination of factors that together combine to bring about best practice in the delivery of transport policy;
• consider those areas of Europe that have made exemplary progress in delivering transport policy and determine the underlying mechanisms - such as single bodies and regional/city-wide approaches to transport planning and delivery - contributing to this success;
• assess the delivery benefits that have been obtained through these mechanisms and whether their implementation can be seen as Best Practice; and
• assess how effective these mechanisms would be if transferred to Scotland and identify any barriers that would have to be overcome for their successful implementation.

The report draws on various sources of information, as follows:

• A literature review of available journal articles, EU research project reports, reports from other government bodies, and publications of regional transport bodies themselves.
• A questionnaire survey of regional transport organisations throughout Europe. Some 58 questionnaires were sent out and 21 returned.
• Some 15 interviews with employees of regional transport organisations, and certain others, such as the European Commission, and Dublin Bus.

Structure of the report

The structure of the report is as follows:

• A review of literature and other information about transport policy delivery in a number of European cities and regions, identifying "success factors" in each case.
• Results from questionnaires.
• Interview results.
• Presentation of a set of "ideal pre-conditions" for the implementation of transport policy.
• Comparison of the existing Scottish situation with the "ideal pre-conditions", and some consideration of how this ideal might assist transport policy implementation in Scotland, with particular reference to regional-scale projects.
• Final conclusions, summarising the findings and comparing these to the objectives.

Literature review

The literature shows that the attainment of better/best practice appears to depend on three factors in particular. This is developed further in the rest of the report, but is summarised here.

The most important and inescapable factor is a willingness to spend money, and a ready source of this money, be it local income tax (Sweden) or employers' tax (France), or the national government for infrastructure investment (as in Spanish suburban rail lines). The money is spent on both infrastructure investment and fares subsidies. On its own, such a policy can achieve increases in public transport ridership, but rarely modal shift from car.

The second factor, which is particularly helpful in the attainment of mode shift objectives, is the existence of policies - such as traffic calming, pedestrianisation and car park charging - that restrain car use; and land-use planning that complements public transport use. For these policies, regional bodies are usually dependent on municipalities - rarely do they have control over these policies directly. Thus in only a relatively few cases is mode shift away from car achieved.

The third is the existence of some kind of regional structure - but these can be voluntary (as in Berlin, for example), and are normally limited to managing public transport. The most important functions of the regional structure are to deliver integrated ticketing, service integration, franchising of bus and other services, and to lead and promote regional transport investment - especially investment in public transport. There is no region that has achieved better practice in transport delivery in Europe that is without a regional body; but there are regions that have a regional body but that have, for other reasons, not achieved better practice. This suggests that the regional body will not on its own lead to success - but success is unlikely to be obtained without it.

Results of interviews and questionnaires

The picture of transport policy delivery that emerges from the interviews and questionnaires is as follows:

• Transport policy objectives are similar across the cases surveyed, and thus similar to those in Scotland.
• Progress has been made towards implementing the infrastructure and services to achieve these objectives, but little progress made towards the objective of reduction in mode share for car and increasing that for public transport has been achieved in only a very few regions. Progress has been most marked towards accident reduction and increasing the accessibility of public transport fleets.
• Large scale regional projects - roads, rail schemes and new metros or trams - are more likely to be implemented than local schemes, according to the respondents for this research.
• Policies focusing on the restraint of the private car, and sustainable urban land-use (densification not dispersal) are the most difficult to implement.
• The most fundamental condition for the achievement of transport policy objectives is to have sufficient funding in place. This funding must also be spent on services and infrastructure that relate to those objectives (e.g. spend the money on public transport if the objective is to increase use of public transport).
• Political consensus and long-term political support for sustainable transport objectives is also very important, as it takes time to achieve transport policy objectives.
• Most regions have a regional body with responsibility for transport.
• The creation of these regional bodies has had beneficial impacts on transport policy delivery in some of the regions from which questionnaires and interview results were obtained.

Case studies

From the literature review, it was possible to identify a number of cities and regions whose transport policy, system and governance structure combine in some way to move those areas towards what is definitely better practice, if not best practice. The cities and regions are:

• Madrid, Spain.
• Barcelona, Spain.
• Jonkoping, and Sundsvall, both in Sweden (considered together).
• Berlin-Brandenburg, Germany.
• Copenhagen, Denmark.
• Helsinki, Finland.
• Stockholm, Sweden.
• London, UK.
• Munich, Germany.
• Zurich, Switzerland.
• Vancouver, Canada.

The review of each city or region was structured around the following factors, which relate to the overall objectives of the study:

• Their transport policy objectives.
• How they organise transport policy implementation.
• How they are governed.
• How they are funded.
• Whether there have been any major changes in their activities, or governance structure, in the recent past, that have either made it easier or more difficult to achieve their transport objectives.
• The actual measures that have been implemented.
• Levels and types of fare available for public transport services.
• Their costs, both for operations and investment.
• Measures of achievement - increases in public transport ridership, increases in quality of public transport, evidence of success in achieving land use policy goals and, most importantly, any changes in modal share for trips in their region.
• Success factors in each case.

Table A.1. presents the most important success factors that, from the review of available evidence, appear to have most influence on the achievement of transport policy objectives. Some of these factors are structural and political; and some are actual transport policies that appear to be particularly important in achieving overall objectives. The first six rows of the table cover these structural factors; and the other rows, the policies that have been most important in achieving objectives. "Public support" refers to the popularity of the region's transport objectives with the public. "Political champion" refers to the presence, or otherwise, of a prominent politician who champions particular transport policies. "Central government "steer" " refers to the degree of guidance from central government to local and regional authorities on the transport policy decisions that they should make. Key statistics on funding are shown in Table A.2.

Table A.1 - Success factors in each case study

« Previous | Contents | Next »