See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223541451
The sustainable mobility paradigm
Article
in
Transport Policy · February 2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005 · Source: RePEc
CITATIONS
397
READS
3,128
1 author:Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Renewable Energy Projects: Local Impacts and Sus-tainability (RELEASE)
View projectDistributive justice and equity in transportation
View projectDavid BanisterUniversity of Oxford
262
PUBLICATIONS
4,959
CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by David Banister on 12 January 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original documentand are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Transport Policy 15 (2008) 73–80
The sustainable mobility paradigm
David Banister
Transport Studies Unit, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, Oxford, UK
Available online 19 November 2007
Abstract
This paper has two main parts. The first questions two of the underlying principles of conventional transport planning on travel as aderived demand and on travel cost minimisation. It suggests that the existing paradigm ought to be more flexible, particularly if thesustainable mobility agenda is to become a reality. The second part argues that policy measures are available to improve urbansustainability in transport terms but that the main challenges relate to the necessary conditions for change. These conditions aredependent upon high-quality implementation of innovative schemes, and the need to gain public confidence and acceptability to supportthese measures through active involvement and action. Seven key elements of sustainable mobility are outlined, so that publicacceptability can be more effectively promoted.
r
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Behaviour; Acceptability; Engagement; Participation
1. The problem
It has often been said that transport planning is at acrisis point and that it underestimates the key challengesfacing urban planners (Banister, 2005; Balaker and Staley,
2006; Wickham, 2006). Yet it has also been remarkably
robust and it has ‘‘survived’’ all these crises to emergealmost intact, perhaps with some minor alterations. Twofundamental principles are embedded in the approach used,namely that travel is a derived demand and not an activitythat people wish to undertake for its own sake. It is only thevalue of the activity at the destination that results in travel.The second principle is that people minimise their general-ised costs of travel, mainly operationalised through acombination of the costs of travel and the time taken fortravel. These two underlying principles have importantconsequences, as they are embedded in most analysis andevaluation studies. They help explain the predominance of transport solutions to urban problems, and the huge growthin faster and longer distance travel, as the increased speed of travel has outweighed the increased costs of travel. Eventhough travel time may have remained constant as citieshave spread, both distances and speeds have increasedsubstantially (Banister, 2006; Deakin, 2006; Duranton,
2006; Kahn, 2006). Local public transport, cycle andwalking have become less attractive, and this in turn hasresulted in the greater use of the car. Car dependence andthe increased decentralisation of cities are difficult processesto reverse—this is the transport-led future.Sustainable mobility provides an alternative paradigmwithin which to investigate the complexity of cities, and tostrengthen the links between land use and transport. Thecity is the most sustainable urban form and it has toprovide the location where most (70–80%) of the world’spopulation will live. Empirical research has concluded thatthe key parameters of the sustainable city are that it shouldbe over 25,000 population (preferably over 50,000), withmedium densities (over 40 persons per hectare), with mixeduse developments, and with preference given to develop-ments in public transport accessible corridors and near tohighly public transport accessible interchanges (Banister,2005, 2006). Such developments conform to the require-ments of service and information-based economies. Settle-ments of this scale would also be linked together to formagglomerations of polycentric cities, with clear hierarchiesthat would allow a close proximity of everyday facilitiesand high levels of accessibility to higher order activities(Hall and Pain, 2006).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol0967-070X/$-see front matter
r
E-mail address:
Such urban forms would keep average trip lengths belowthe thresholds required for maximum use of the walk andcycle modes. It would also permit high levels of innovativeservices and public transport priority, so that the need touse the car would be minimised. Through the combinationof clear planning strategies, cities would be designed at thepersonal scale to allow both high-quality accessibility and ahigh-quality environment. The intention is not to prohibitthe use of the car, as this would be both difficult to achieveand it would be seen as being against notions of freedomand choice. The intention is to design cities of such qualityand at a suitable scale that people would not need tohave a car.This alternative approach requires clear and innovativethinking about city futures in terms of the reality (what isalready there) and the desirability (what we would like tosee), and the role that transport can (and should) play inachieving these objectives. This paper describes these twofundamental problems with the traditional perspective ontransport planning, and it then goes on to discuss whathave been called
schizophrenic paths
, when it is clear thataction is needed but no effective action is taken to remedythe situation (Banister, 2005, p. 234).
2. Two dilemmas
2.1. Transport as a derived demand or as a valued activity?
With respect to the work journey, travel time isimportant, but as travel patterns change and there is anincrease in leisure-based travel, travel time may becomemore of a positively valued activity (Loo and Chow, 2006;Schlich et al., 2004; Mokhtarian et al., 2006). The notionthat all travel is a derived demand may become weaker asincomes rise and as leisure time becomes more valuable(Mokhtarian and Salomon, 2001). Escape theory (Heinze,
2000) hypothesises that leisure mobility is an attempt tocompensate for a declining quality of life and travelopportunities are sought to get away from ones everydayenvironment to do something completely different. Asubstantial amount of leisure travel is undertaken for itsown sake and the activity of travelling is valued.Conventional transport analysis is based on the premisethat travel is a cost, and that travel times should be as shortas possible. But this is changing as the new technologyallows much greater travel time flexibility, including mobileworking. It provides tremendous opportunity and choice inleisure activities, whether this means time spent online inthe home, or taking the opportunity to book a last minuteholiday overseas, or adapting existing activities (such asshopping). In each case, there seems to be a strongcomplementarity between the old (transport) and the new(ICT) technologies. Travel can be replaced by more ‘‘at-home’’ activities, whilst in other cases more spontaneoustravel is generated, and in a third group there is amodification of existing activities, as shopping for examplebecomes a multitasking activity through a combination of the Internet (e.g. viewing, deciding and buying) and travel(e.g. collection or delivery).The knowledge base is extended and this may againresult in more travel, but more important is the transfer of power from the producer to the consumer. Increasingly,users will control their leisure and shopping activitiestailored to their own specific requirements. Consumers willdetermine what type of leisure activity they participate in,where and when it takes place, who actually goes withthem, and the range of alternatives will also increasesubstantially. For an accessible sustainable city to becomea reality requires active citizen support and new forms of communication between experts and citizens, through newforums for discussion and the involvement of all majorstakeholders (Section 4).
2.2. Time minimisation and reasonable travel time
There is a contradiction between the desire to speed upand the desire to slow traffic down. For evaluationpurposes, much of the user benefit (often over 80% of total benefits) is derived from the savings in travel time andthe desire to travel faster. This is not the place to enter thedebate on how these values of timesaving are derived, orhow they are used by the beneficiaries, or in the analysis.But there does seem to be an inconsistency in the traveltimesavings argument within cities, where much effort isnow going into slowing traffic down for environmental andsafety reasons. Although it is not explicitly stated, a certainlevel of congestion on roads is now seen as ‘‘desirable’’ andin many locations (e.g. residential streets and aroundschools), new low speed limits have been introduced, to-gether with appropriate enforcement measures (e.g. speedcameras).So, on the one hand, there are the perpetual complaintsfrom industry that the time lost in congestion is costingbusiness money, and on the other hand, there is a transportstrategy that both tries to speed traffic up and slow it down.The notion of a transport system with no congestion hasnever been a realistic objective, and much of the recentdebate has been over what should be considered as areasonable level of congestion (Urry and Lyons, 2005). Thekey policy objective now becomes that of reasonable traveltime, rather than travel time minimisation. People andbusinesses are already concerned about knowing howmuch time it should take to travel to their destination witha reasonable degree of certainty. It is the reliability of thesystem that is crucial (Noland and Polak, 2002).
3. Contrasting approaches to transport planning
These two points are both important in terms of understanding the rationale behind transport analysis, asmany of the methods used cannot handle travel as a valuedactivity or travel time reliability. But they also haveimportant implications for transport planning, if it is toembrace the concepts of a sustainable mobility. The
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Banister / Transport Policy 15 (2008) 73–80
74
primary concerns over the physical dimensions (urbanform and traffic) should be balanced by the social dim-ensions (people and proximity), as illustrated in Table 1.The sustainable mobility approach requires actions toreduce the need to travel (less trips), to encourage modalshift, to reduce trip lengths and to encourage greaterefficiency in the transport system.
3.1. Reducing the need to travel—substitution
In its pure form this means that a trip is no longer made,as it has either been replaced by a non-travel activity or ithas been substituted through technology, for exampleInternet shopping. The impact of ICT on transport iscomplex and most recent thinking (Banister and Stead,2004) argues for complementarity between transport andICT. Although there is a large substitution potential, therelationships between transport and ICT seem to besymbiotic with a greater opportunity for flexibility intravel patterns, as some activities are substituted, whilstothers are generated, and some replaced by fewer longerdistance journeys (Lyons and Kenyon, 2003).
3.2. Transport policy measures—modal shift
Transport policy measures can reduce levels of car usethrough the promotion of walk and cycle and thedevelopment of the new transport hierarchy (Table 1).This can be achieved through slowing down urban trafficand reallocating space to public transport, through parkingcontrols and road pricing, and through making it easier touse public transport. Demand management is effective inrestricting access and reallocating space, and making moreeffective use of the available capacity. A much wider notionof the street is being created, as it is no longer only beingconsidered as a road but also as a space for people, greenmodes and public transport. Creative use of this space atdifferent times of the day or day of the week means alsothat new uses can be encouraged (e.g. street markets orplay zones). Measures to encourage modal shift must becombined with strategies to make the best use of the‘‘released space’’, so that there is a net reduction in traffic(Banister and Marshall, 2000).
3.3. Land-use policy measures—distance reduction
These measures address the physical separation of activities and the means by which distance can be reduced.The intention is to build sustainable mobility into thepatterns of urban form and layouts, which in turn may leadto a switch to green modes of transport. It is one area of public policy where intervention can take place, throughincreasing densities and concentration, through mixed usedevelopment, through housing location, through the designof buildings, space and route layouts, through publictransport oriented development and transport developmentareas, through car-free development, and through estab-lishing size thresholds for the availability of services andfacilities. The timescale over which sustainable mobilitymight be realised is similar to the turnover of the buildingstock (about 2% per annum), but decisions on the locationof new housing will have a single dramatic effect on travelpatterns and these effects will impact over the lifetime of this housing (Banister and Hickman, 2006).
3.4. Technological innovation—efficiency increase
The role of technology is important as it impacts on theefficiency of transport directly through ensuring that thebest available technology is being used in terms of enginedesign, alternative fuels, and the use of renewable energysources. Standards can also be introduced to reduce levelsof noise and emissions at source, and measures can betaken to ensure that access to certain parts of the city isrestricted to those vehicles that are seen to be environmen-tally cleaner than other vehicles. This is a combination of technological efficiency and behavioural change (e.g.ecological driving and adherence to speed limits). It wouldalso include increasing load factors in both the passengerand freight sectors.Summarising these four actions, it seems that the key tosuch a shift in thinking is the creation of spaces andlocalities in the city that are attractive and affordable, asneighbourhood quality is central to sustainable mobility.Transport planning must involve the people,
1
so that thereis an understanding of the rationale behind the policy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1Contrasting approaches to transport planningThe conventional approach— transport planning andengineeringAn alternative approach—sustainablemobilityPhysical dimensions Social dimensionsMobility AccessibilityTraffic focus, particularly on thecarPeople focus, either in (or on) a vehicleor on footLarge in scale Local in scaleStreet as a road Street as a spaceMotorised transport All modes of transport often in ahierarchy with pedestrian and cyclistat the top and car users at the bottomForecasting traffic Visioning on citiesModelling approaches Scenario development and modellingEconomic evaluation Multicriteria analysis to take accountof environmental and social concernsTravel as a derived demand Travel as a valued activity as well as aderived demandDemand based Management basedSpeeding up traffic Slowing movement downTravel time minimisation Reasonable travel times and traveltime reliabilitySegregation of people and traffic Integration of people and traffic
Source
1
People are used here to cover all stakeholders with an interest in thequality of their local environment.
D. Banister / Transport Policy 15 (2008) 73–80
75