The Scottish Government

Country

Organisation

Returned?

Interviewed?

Netherlands

Arnhem-Nijmegen Province
Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer
Drenthe Province

Yes
Yes
No

No
Yes
No

Denmark

HUR, Copenhagen
Ribe Amts Trafikselskab

Yes
Yes

No
No

Norway

Rogaland County Council (Stavanger)
Trondheim Road User Charging Authority

Yes
Yes
Yes
No

No
No
No
No

General manager, Stor-Oslo Lokaltrafikk a.s.
Information Manager, Stor-Oslo Lokaltrafikk

Sweden

Head of Admin, AB Storstockholms Landtrafik

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Jonkoping transport authority

Finland

YTV, Helsinki

Yes

Yes

Germany

Hanover Region

Yes

No

Greece

Ministry of Transport

Yes

No

Spain - Madrid

Studies and Planning Dept., Madrid "PTE"

Yes

Yes

Spain - Barcelona

Catalan Government (Barcelona)
ATM - Metropolitan Transport Authority

No
No

No
No

Austria

Stadt Graz

Yes
Yes
No
No

No
No
No
No

Department for Transport Planning, Salzburg

Baubehörde (National)
Styrian Government

Switzerland

Public Transport Authority, Berne
Controller, Zürcher Verkehrsverbund (ZVV)

Yes
No

No
No

France
France
France

GART

No
Yes
No

No
Yes
No

Paris Transport Authority

CESA, Tours

Belgium
Belgium

Gent local gov.

No
Yes

No
No

Flemish Transport Administration

Italy

Region Emilia-Romagna

Yes

No

Portugal

TIS (Consultant)

No

No

Ireland

Dublin Transportation Office, Dublin

No

No

Canada

TransLink, Vancouver

Yes

Yes

USA

Orange County Transportation Authority, CA

Yes

No

London

Greater London Authority

No
No

Yes
Yes

Transport for London

Levels of government

NG = National Government
PG = Provincial Government
RG = Regional Government
MG = Municipal Government
(These terms are explained in Figure 2.1 below.)

Transport Policy Objectives

1 = Reduce car use
2 = Increase public transport use
3 = Increase social inclusion
4 = Increase cycling
5 = Increase walking
6 = Reduce journey times for all modes
7 = Reduce journey times for sustainable transport modes
8 = Reduce accidents
9 = Reduce total person kilometres
10 = Increase the accessibility of the transport system to people with mobility problems
11 = Make transport more affordable
12 = Increase economic development
13 = Increase participation in labour market
14 = Improve air quality

Madrid

Helsinki

Hanover

Oslo

Stockholm

Population

5,022,289

970,000

515, 000

978,000

1.8 million

Area

8,028 km ²

764 km ²

20,407 Km ²

5,370 Km ²

6,500 Km ²

No of levels of govt with responsibility for transport

3: NG, RG, MG

3: NG, PG, RG, MG

4: NG, PG, RG, MG

3: NG, RG, MG

3: NG, RG, MG

Regional body has control of PT?

Shares with NG

No control of policy and planning (P&P), shared control of operation and maintenance (O&M)

No

No

Yes

Regional body has control of all modes?

No

No

No

No

No

Private sector a significant source of revenue funding?

N/A

No

N/A

No

N/A

Private sector a significant source of capital funding?

No

No

N/A

No

No

Major infrastructure projects delivered recently?

Yes - motorways, long distance and outer suburban rail

Yes - outer suburban rail, major and local roads, pedestrian and cycle infrastructure, trams, guided buses and parking policy

Yes - motorways, major roads, road pricing, outer and inner suburban rail, parking policy and parking enforcement.

Yes - Motorways, major roads, local roads, pedestrian & cycle infrastructure, long distance, suburban and inner suburban rail, road pricing, trams, buses, ferries, aviation, fares policy, information, land-use policy & planning, parking, freight

Yes - suburban rail/metro, tram system, bus/guided bus.

Main transport policy objectives

1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11

2, 4, 8

1, 2, 10

1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

1, 2, 8, 10,14

Achieving objectives?

Yes

some progress

Yes

Yes - 8, 10, 13, 14

Yes - 1

Car mode share reducing?

Yes - slightly

N/A

Yes - slightly

No

No

Comparative assessment

Some implementation

Some implementation

Some implement-ation

Well implemented

very well implemented

Graz

Vancouver

Rogaland, Norway

Trondheim, Norway

Ribe County, Denmark

Population

237,810

2 million

190,000

200,000

224, 000

Area

127,571 Km ²

1,800 Km ²

717 Km ²

2400 Km ²

3,131 km ²

No. of levels of govt with responsibility for transport

3: NG, PG, MG

4: NG, PG, RG, MG

3: NG, RG, MG

3: NG, RG, MG

3

Regional body has control of PT?

No

Yes

No

No

No

Regional body has control of all modes?

No

No

No

No

No

Private sector a significant source of revenue funding?

N/A

Total funding for aviation

No

Yes

Yes

Private sector a significant source of capital funding?

N/A

No

No

Yes

Fairly

Major infrastructure projects delivered recently?

major and local roads, pedestrian and cycle infrastructure and buses/guided buses.

outer suburban and inner suburban rail, motorways, major roads, pedestrian and cycle infrastructure, outer suburban rail, inner suburban rail, buses/guided buses, land-use planning policy and land-use planning implementation

land use planning policy, pedestrian and cycle infrastructure

motorways; major roads; local roads; pedestrian and cycle infrastructure; road pricing; land-use planning policy and parking policy.

N/A

Main transport policy objectives

1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 14

1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 14

1, 2, 4, 5, 8,10

1, 2, 7, 8

N/A

Achieving objectives?

N/A

Yes: all

Yes: 2 &10

Yes: very limited

N/A

Car mode share reducing?

N/A

No

No

increasing

N/A

Comparative assessment

Some implementation

Well implemented

Some implementation

Some implementation

Some implementation

Arnhem/Nijmegen, Netherlands

Copenhagen

Berne

Orange County

Paris lle de France

Population

680,000

1.8 million

944,000

2.8 million

11 million

Area

990 Km ²

2,870 Km ²

5,959Km ²

2,068 km ²

12,000 km ²

No. of levels of govt with responsibility for transport

4: NG, PG, RG, MG

4: NG, PG, RG, MG

3: NG, PG, MG

4: NG, PG, RG, MG

4

Regional body has control of PT?

No

some control

No

No

No

Regional body has control of all modes?

No

No

No

No

No

Private sector a significant source of revenue funding?

N/A

No

No

N/A

Private sector a significant source of capital funding?

N/A

No

Yes

N/A

Major infrastructure projects delivered recently?

N/A

Motorways, metro, and long distance rail.

Long distance rail, motorways, metro, buses.

N/A

Main transport policy objectives

N/A

2

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 10, 14,

N/A

Achieving objectives?

N/A

No

Yes: 2, 3, 4, 8, 11, 10, 14

N/A

Car mode share reducing?

N/A

N/A

No

No - increasing

Comparative assessment

N/A

Some implementation

Well implemented

N/A

Some implementation

Jonkoping County, Sweden

The Netherlands

Emilia-Romagna, Italy

Land Salzburg, Austria

Greater Athens, Greece

Population

350,000

16,000,000

4 million

520, 000

3,305,000

Area

11,000 km ²

41,526 km ²

1,142 km ²

7,154 km ²

1,450 km ²

No. of levels of govt with responsibility for transport

3

3

4

3

3

Regional body has control of PT?

No

Yes, in some areas

No

No

No

Regional body has control of all modes?

No

as above

No

No

No

Private sector a significant source of revenue funding?

N/A

N/A

N/A

No

No

Private sector a significant source of capital funding?

N/A

N/A

N/A

No

No

Major infrastructure projects delivered recently?

motorways, local roads, pedestrian &cycle infrastructure, outer suburban rail, buses, ferry, fares policy, information

N/A

Pedestrian & cycle infrastructure, outer suburban rail, trams, bus/guided bus, ferries, information, land-use planning policy.

Pedestrian & cycle infrastructure, major roads, motorways, outer suburban rail, bus/guided bus, aviation and fares policy.

Aviation, Inner suburban rail/metro.

Main transport policy objectives

1,2,4,6,7,8,10,12,13,14

N/A

N/A

1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14

1,2,4,6,7,8,10,11,12,14

Achieving objectives?

2,7,8

N/A

N/A

1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14

1

Car mode share reducing?

no

N/A

?

N/A

no - increasing

Comparative assessment

well implemented

N/A

N/A

Well implemented

Some implementation