Unfortunately, as a result of the restrictions arising from the CoviD-19 pandemic, it is not currently possible to update the KonSULT website. It is being maintained as a teaching resource and for practitioners wishing to use its Measure and Package Option Generators and its Policy Guidebook. Practitioners wishing to use it, should do so on the clear understanding that recent experience on existing and new policy measures has not been incorporated.

Decision Makers' Guidebook

Case studies

Edinburgh Case Study
Madrid Case Study
Oslo Case Study
Vienna Case Study 
Case Study Comparison


01The assessment of cities’ needs in PROSPECTS was based on detailed collaboration with six case study cities, with 02whom the project discussed decision-making needs, and for whom it conducted a series of model-based analyses to test the principles set out in Sections 7 to 14. These six, Edinburgh, Helsinki, Madrid, Oslo, Stockholm and Vienna, all represent good practice in policy formulation and implementation, though none follows in full the approaches which we recommend in this Guidebook. They are inevitably not representative of all types of European city. In practice they are all relatively large, with populations in the city region ranging from 0.7M to 5.3M. They are also all capital cities, and thus attract greater attention than provincial cities of the same size.

Case study summary

To help overcome this, PROSPECTS also conducted a questionnaire survey of decision-making contexts and needs in a further 54 cities from 17 countries, as highlighted in the map. Of the 54, 14 had populations of 30,000 to 100,000, 20 between 100,000 and 250,000, and 20 of over 250,000. They included 25 from northern and central Europe, 22 from southern Europe, and 7 from Newly Associated States in eastern Europe. The survey covered city characteristics, responsibilities, influences and participation; types of decision-making approach; objectives, indicators, targets and time horizons; past trends and future scenarios; policy instruments considered; and barriers to implementation. We have presented some of the results from this survey in Sections 34 and 10; the full results, including comparisons between cities of different size and in different regions, are available in Deliverable 1 of PROSPECTS, listed in Section 18.

In this section we present four of these full case studies. As noted above, none of them represents fully the approach which we have advocated in this guidebook. As a result there are differences between them, both in the problems to be tackled and in the approaches which they have adopted. This is helpful in enabling both strengths and weaknesses in their approaches to be illustrated.

Case study structure

03In the following eight pages, we summarise each of the four case studies in terms of the principal themes of this guidebook, grouped as shown. In the latter two sections, we have only commented where the cities have adopted particularly interesting approaches. In the last two pages we have compared the four against each of these themes to identify examples of good practice and key messages for others using this Guidebook.

04The four case studies

05Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, has a population of 450,000, but serves as regional centre for some 700,000 people. It has developed around the historic Old Town and castle, which was an easily fortified volcanic plug just south of the Firth of Forth. The urban area is now developed up to the coast in the north, and to the next range of hills to the south. The Old Town and eighteenth century New Town are now a World Heritage Site, and Edinburgh has an active tourism and cultural industry, as well as being the legal and financial centre of Scotland.

06Madrid is one of the 17 Autonomous Regions in Spain, with a slowly growing population (5.4 million inhabitants in 2001, and a yearly growth rate of only 0.5% since 1986) in an area of 8,028 km2. The population is distributed unevenly among Madrid City (2.9 millions and 4,727.7 inh/km2), the metropolitan ring (2.1 millions and 471 inh/km2) and the mainly rural rest of the region. Sprawl trends, with the central core losing population to metropolitan municipalities, have increased recently.

Oslo, the capital of Norway, has a population of 500 000, with 470 000 more in the surrounding Akershus county. Two thirds of the city’s area is woodlands, and it has long been a policy not to expand into this green belt. Once an industrial centre, Oslo is now predominantly a service city. Oslo was quite successful up to the 1980s in relocating the inner city population to new residential areas, providing these with metro lines and other amenities from the start, and regenerating the inner city. However, long term trends towards relocating in Akershus outside the green belt are now generating urban sprawl. In transport, the most important experience has been the financing of new road construction by way of a toll ring.

Vienna is situated in eastern Austria, not far from the borders with Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. The capital of Austria, it has a population of 1.6 million (city area: 415 km²). It is by far the largest city of the country, with 20% of the population of Austria. The so-called “Urban Region Vienna” covers an area with a radius of 40 to 50 km around Vienna and has a total population of 2.2 million. The development of the population, settlement and employment structures in the Vienna region has led to urban sprawl and in particular to a sharp increase in car traffic.

Case Study 1 – Edinburgh

Decision-making context

All trips by City of Edinburgh
resdients by mode (%)
  Cycle Walk Public
1999 1.6 23.8 15.7 56.9 2.1
2000 0.8 23.5 16.7 56.0 3.0
2001 1.8 25.3 17.8 52.8 2.2
6 26 23 45 -

e01 e02 e03 e04Edinburgh has experienced major changes in responsibilities for transport and land use. Regional and District Councils were abolished in Scotland in 1996 and replaced by unitary authorities. Power for many policies, including transport, was devolved from London to the Scottish Parliament in 1998. As a result, the City of Edinburgh Council is now responsible for transport policy within policies laid down by the Scottish Executive. The Executive follows national policies closely, but with subtle differences in implementation. In 1996 the Scottish Executive set up the Local Transport Strategy (LTS) policy documents for councils to produce for their area in the context of the strategic Structure Plan policies. The City of Edinburgh Council is responsible for all roads within the city, but not for the trunk roads and motorways which approach it. Bus services were deregulated in 1986 and many are still run by Lothian Buses plc, who are still owned by the Council and adjacent authorities. Rail services were privatised in 1992, and all local services are now run by Scotrail.

Approach to decision-making and participation

Edinburgh reflects elements of all three approaches to decision-making. It has made extensive use of plan-based studies to develop its strategy. Having learnt from a period in the 1970s and 1980s in which sectional interests obstructed progress, it consults widely in order to achieve consensus in its strategy. It has had visionary leaders of its transport strategy, who have been keen for Edinburgh to provide leadership nationally.

The 1991 transport study, which laid the foundations for the strategy, involved workshops with representatives of all the main interest groups to agree on the problems and objectives and to identify possible solutions. The resulting strategy included the possibility of road pricing, which was always bound to be controversial, and the Council conducted three consultations. The first, in 1999, obtained views from residents and businesses on the choice between a low cost strategy without demand management, a medium cost one with charges for employee parking, and a high cost one financed by road pricing. The second, in 2002, sought residents’ and firms’ views on three transport options including two road pricing strategies. The third, in 2005, led to road pricing (“congestion charging”) being rejected, following a city wide referendum. This has led to a major reappraisal of the overall strategy.

Objectives, indicators, targets and problems

Edinburgh adopts an objective-led approach. It is expected to work towards the government’s overall transport objectives which cover the environment, safety, economic efficiency and growth, and accessibility for all. These reflect most of the objectives listed in Section 7, with the possible exception of liveability and health and some aspects of equity. They do not, however, place much emphasis on longer term sustainability. Performance indicators are largely those specified by government, and include both intermediate outcome indicators of modal share and outcome indicators for the environment and safety. Targets are set for some of these, again largely reflecting government requirements.

Policy instruments, barriers and strategy formulation

The key elements of the New Transport Initiative are enhancements to public transport infrastructure, improved management of the road network and reallocation of road space. The possibility of using road pricing to manage demand and generate revenue was considered, but has since been rejected. A land use strategy has been developed which complements these measures. The public transport improvements include new guided bus and light rail lines, reopening a disused rail line and introducing new rail services, together with park and ride and extensive bus priority schemes. Road network management measures include urban traffic control, on-street parking control, pedestrian friendly streets in the city centre, reallocation of other road space to buses and cyclists, and traffic calming in residential areas. Other innovative measures include experiments with car clubs and car free neighbourhoods, company travel plans and awareness campaigns.

The main institutional barrier is the integration of services, ticketing and information by different service providers, following deregulation. Finance for transport is severely constrained, and road pricing has been developed as a major source of financial support for the overall strategy. In spite of extensive awareness raising and consultation road pricing remains the most contentious element of the strategy, and has now been rejected.

Prediction, appraisal and optimisation

Lothian Region commissioned a novel strategic transport model, START, for the 1991 study. This was used to test some 70 possible policy combinations, and enabled the key elements in the strategy to be identified as the appropriate levels of infrastructure provision, road space reduction, public transport fares, and road pricing. The final strategy was based on these. Subsequently a land use model, DELTA, was added, and the two have now been upgraded to a new version, TRAM/DELTA, which enables the effects of a transport and land use strategy to be tested over a twenty year period. Appraisal methods are specified by government, in Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG), and include a cost-benefit analysis, which covers travel and accident costs, and a multi-criteria framework to highlight impacts on the environment, accessibility and equity. Edinburgh provided the test-bed for the optimisation methods described in Section 14. To date, however, the optimisation procedure has been used primarily for research purposes.


A key issue is how to manage the implementation of such a complex strategy. A new body has been established: TIE (Transport Initiative Edinburgh) Ltd, owned by the City Council but managed by the private sector. The company is responsible for developing, procuring and managing major projects; ensuring public acceptability; procuring, implementing and operating the road pricing scheme; and raising funds in other ways.


Case Study 2: Madrid

madrid02madrid03madrid04madrid05madrid06Decision-making context

The Madrid Regional Government has responsibility for regional roads, while the main roads remain in the hands of the national government and local roads with the municipalities. The Regional Government is responsible for the approval of local urban development plans (Planes Generales de Ordenación Urbana) and for coordinating public transport services in the region. It has promoted the Consorcio de Transportes de Madrid, a public authority integrating most of the public transport responsibilities previously in the hands of the Regional and Local Governments. Almost all municipalities have voluntarily joined the Consorcio and transferred to it their responsibilities for public transport. The Consorcio also runs the Metro system on behalf of the Region.

Approach to decision-making and participation

Although elements of all the three approaches to decision-making are in operation, there has been a clear move from the “plan-led” to the “vision-led” approach. Consensus among institutions has been another key and continuing aspect, but attempts to open up the process to other stakeholders have lacked ambition and have yielded modest results. Regional and local land use plans are required, by law, to hold public hearings, prior to final approval. This is not the case for many urban development and transport projects, and in particular for the metro extensions built recently or in progress. More participatory processes have been attempted, with mixed results. While information provision is extensive, and formal and informal consultations are made at various stages, there is no direct influence of most groups in actual decision-making, or signs of moving in that direction.

Objectives, indicators, targets and problems

The rapid movement of population to the suburbs in search of better housing is leading to significant changes in transport demand and land use patterns in the Madrid metropolitan area. This has tended to dominate the Regional Government’s objectives, which are to cope with this problem, while supporting economic growth and seeking equity between the areas within the region. Considerations of efficiency, environment and safety are subsidiary to these, but still important in tackling the problems of out-migration. There is not much emphasis on long term sustainability and, indeed, the current trends are producing more and longer journeys. The main indicators and targets used, as discussed further below, relate to process indicators of modal shares.

Policy instruments, barriers and strategy formulation

Transport policies have combined four key principles for many years. An integrated public transport system has been developed, covering fares, services and the administrative framework. One of the key issues was the introduction of the PT Travelcard, valid in the whole region. There has been an impressive investment in transport infrastructure, including commuter rail services, expansion of the metro system (with 120 km of new lines in the last ten years), innovative infrastructure such as the first HOV lane in Europe, and the development of park and ride interchanges. Recently new tram projects have been passed to connect suburbs with metro and commuter rail stations. The quality of public transport has been enhanced, encouraging and assisting undertakings to renew their fleets and introducing more comfortable, less polluting vehicles. Information systems are offered in the web, but information centres have not been sufficiently developed.

Madrid City for its part is developing a strategy that reduces car use in the centre: pedestrianisation, parking pricing, car restrictions and segregated bus lanes.

Economic prosperity in the late 1990s has favoured a more market-oriented approach to spatial planning: the regional vision has been gradually replaced by ad hoc planning, negotiated on a case-by-case basis between the Regional Government (or the City of Madrid) and big developers. Transport has emerged as one of the key elements in these negotiations, with the public sector providing public transport infrastructure to these newly developed areas, in some cases before urban development actually occurs. The Regional Government’s attempts to limit new urban development plans in the suburbs have failed in the last few years, new urban development proposals are generally approved by public authorities, with little concern about their future impacts on the transport system.

Prediction, appraisal and optimisation

Both the Consorcio and Madrid Region use modelling techniques based on EMME/2 to evaluate new infrastructure for roads and public transport. The predictions are based on a household mobility survey conducted every eight years in the Region. All the plans and projects are appraised using a cost-benefit analysis complemented by the appraisal of some environmental and social effects. However, these techniques are applied only to improve the design of strategies and projects already decided by consensus among public bodies.

Implementation and monitoring

Monitoring is mainly focused on the effective implementation of new facilities, and their co-ordination with the construction of the new planned urban areas. Monitoring is also conducted by the respective operators (parking lots, rail, metro, buses), but there is not much interest in elaborating indicators to make this information more useful for decision-makers and the public. Modal split has received much attention as an indicator of the effectiveness of transport policies in Madrid. This is not surprising, as public transport patronage has steadily increased since the Consorcio was created in 1986. Today, Madrid is a leader in public transport share: public transport covers 54% of all motorised trips (1997) in the Region, and is dominant in the central city (66%) and in radial trips (52%).


Case Study 3 – Oslo

oslo01oslo02oslo03oslo04oslo05oslo06Decision-making context

The decision-making context in the Oslo region is very complex. National authorities and their regional offices are in charge of the trunk road system and the railway infrastructure and get their funding from parliamentary budget decisions. The national railway operator is in charge of local and intercity railway traffic, and receives subsidies partly at the national level and partly from Akershus county. There are two counties in the region, Oslo and Akershus. The counties’ main responsibilities are secondary health care, education, transport (county roads and public transport) and strategic planning. There are two major public transport providers, one for each county. One of them procures all transport service production from private firms, while the other (Oslo) produces tram and metro services itself and provides bus services through its subsidiary and another major firm. Land use regulation at the detailed level is the responsibility of the third—municipal—level, which in the case of Oslo is identical to the country level. The municipalities are in charge of minor roads and streets.

Approach to decision-making and participation

The decision-making approach at the national level is plan-led. Ten year national transport plans are rolled forward every four years. Increasingly, they are also concerned with city transport problems, and even try to include urban land use policies. At the same time, the counties have their own strategic plans. To the extent that elements of the local plans require national funding, they will have to be adopted in the national plan. The structure means that a system of consultation is required to develop the plans. Planning based on local initiatives and partial local financing through user charges has now become the standard in Norwegian urban transport planning. A clear statement of objectives and analysis of problems lead on to consideration of the policy instruments needed to achieve the objectives. However, since there are so many parties involved, each with a need to get the plan through their elected bodies, it is also vital to seek consensus. In the past, it proved possible to reach a sufficient degree of consensus on strategic road and public transport infrastructure packages: the Oslo Package 1 of road infrastructure investment started in the late 1980s and still underway, and the Oslo Package 2 of public transport infrastructure initiated in 2000. Currently, a more comprehensive package, Oslo package 3, is being devised along the same lines. Issues of main road building, user charges and equity have led to local political conflict on the package, but consensus is expected to be reached soon. Participation is sought through a system of hearings, meetings, information leaflets and through media debate. Participation was especially prominent in the regeneration of inner city residential areas. 

Objectives, indicators and targets

At the highest level, the objective has been stated as follows: the land use and transport system of Oslo and Akershus is to be developed to promote socially efficient use of resources, environmentally sound solutions, security in local communities and neighbourhoods, traffic safety and a high level of accessibility. Of the objectives of Section 7, growth is given less priority in Oslo, while equity issues are important even if not mentioned explicitly here. For the national transport plan, a set of indicators has been devised, although they do not seem to meet the decision-makers’ need for information and lack a clear link to objectives. In the county plans many of the lower level objectives are framed as targets.

Policy instruments, barriers and strategy formulation

Current plans are very much biased towards infrastructure provision. As noted earlier, the most important Oslo experience is the financing of a package of new road construction by way of a toll ring. The toll ring was intended to raise money without affecting traffic, and was rather successful in this respect. However, legislation to allow road pricing and road tolling for other purposes than financing infrastructure building has since been enacted. At the municipal level, a charge on studded tyres is levied and the toll ring extended to 2012 to finance urban regeneration in the harbour area. Seeing that in spite of infrastructure provision, congestion and air pollution are becoming severe problems, the coming Oslo package 3 will have a broader scope. The strategy might consist of concentrating development to public transport nodes; improving public transport quality and implementing an area-wide common policy on financing of public transport operations and on fares; policies to promote walking and cycling and mitigate environmental damage; and a car use policy that combines infrastructure with traffic calming measures in a balanced package that takes all effects into account. The implementation of a comprehensive strategy will require a permanent coordinating group; agreement on this constitutes a political barrier. The other main barrier is finance. National policy has been unfavourable to Oslo and the tax base has been eroded. To circumvent these barriers, financing by user contributions has been developed.

Prediction, appraisal and optimisation

Transport models are used for large projects, and were used to assess problems for the recent comprehensive plan. But strategic plans have often consisted of a set of projects that have been evaluated separately. LUTI modelling has only been applied for research purposes. CBA (including accidents, air pollution and noise) with an accompanying EIA have long been the standard methods in appraisal. A common national framework for this exists. Optimisation has only been used for research purposes.

Case Study 4 – Vienna

vi01vi02vi03vi04vi05vi06Decision-making context

Urban development and transport policy is the responsibility of the Viennese city government and administration. Regional development is coordinated by PGO (Planning Group for East-Region), but this organisation has no legal power. Municipalities can make their own decisions on land use within their respective borders. Public transport responsibilities are divided between the city of Vienna, which is responsible for inner-city PT services (metro, tram, bus), and the national government, which takes responsibility for railway and regional bus services. The Transport-Association East-Region (Verkehrsverbund Ost-Region: VOR) was established in 1984 in order to establish an interconnecting network of transport services with a unified fare structure. In July 2002, most federal roads were turned over to local state government while major motorways remain under the authority of national government.

Approach to decision-making and participation

The decision making of Vienna is more or less based on a mix of approaches (Section 4). However, the city mostly follows a plan based approach. The fundamental objectives, policies and measures of urban and transport planning were formulated in the Urban Development Plan and the Traffic Concept (both published in 1994) and updated recently in the Urban Development Plan 2005 (STEPS05). These plans are to be updated every 10 years. Moreover, current trends of urban development are analysed in Urban Development Reports, the latest published in 2000. Visions for Vienna were published in the Strategy Plan 2000 and the Masterplan Transport 2003. In recent years, a consensus-based approach has gained more and more importance, e.g. in the development of the Masterplan Transport all citizens were able to participate. This approach is very similar to that recommended in this guidebook. The starting point was a participation process in which the relevant stakeholders defined the overall objective. Indicators to monitor the achievement of the defined objective were defined. 

Participation tools are used informally. The city administration provides a lot of information for citizens and stakeholders by means of publications, the Internet, exhibitions and a citizens’ service office. Other elements of more active participation are discussions and on-line chats about concepts and projects of urban development. At the project level the municipality uses a tool of citizens’ participation (Burgerbeteiligungsverfahren) as a formal part of the planning process. The main objectives are the transparency of the planning process and to include as much as possible public acceptance

Objectives, indicators, targets and problems

The Traffic Concept includes objectives such as the reduction of traffic impacts on the environment and health, an increase of traffic safety and a reallocation of urban space for pedestrians and cyclists. To achieve these objectives, a reduction in urban sprawl, a reduction in traffic volume and an increase in the mode shares for public transport, walking and cycling are needed. Several indicators have been defined to monitor the achievement of the objectives, such as modal split, traffic safety (number of accidents, injuries and fatalities), noise level, air pollutants and CO2. A target formulated in the Traffic Concept 1994 is to reduce the modal share of private car to 25% by 2010.

Policy instruments, barriers and strategy formulation

Vienna pursues a strategy of polycentric development to achieve a reduction of urban sprawl and traffic volume. This strategy includes elements of increasing the density of central districts, urban expansion around sub-centres in the other districts and axial development along regional railway lines. The Traffic Concept provides a list of specific packages. Public transport services are to be enhanced through an extension of the underground, prioritisation of buses and trams and an improvement of marketing and information. Walking and cycling are to be promoted through an extension of pedestrian areas and bicycle ways. Car restraint measures focus on parking space management within the inner districts and traffic calming.

Barriers exist with respect to the axial development. Firstly, there is a lack of co-ordination of the municipalities’ activities regarding land use within the Vienna region. Each municipality pursues its own policies, and their aim is in general to collect as much tax as possible. The main problem is that no binding instruments are in place to support axial development. The planning group PGO can only give recommendations. Secondly, landowners and investors use their financial power to overcome land use and transport policies, so that certain projects are realised, which are not in accordance with the planned and desired developments.

Prediction, appraisal and optimisation

The Viennese administration uses the multi-modal model VISUM/VISEM as a formal transport modelling tool. VISUM is an information and planning system for network analysis and forecasting. VISEM is applied for the trip generation matrices based on a travel demand model, which basically considers activities and connects these with a mobility program. The urban planning department has been using VISUM/VISEM for more than seven years. During this time the model has been improved and the transport network refined. It is used to model the whole urban transport system as well as impacts of special projects. Currently the model is being used to analyse impacts of urban extensions in the north east of Vienna. There is no formal requirement for appraisal.

Case Study Comparison

Decision-making context

None of the four cities has a simple structure for decision-making. Edinburgh is notable for the number of changes in responsibility which it has experienced in the last decade. It is also alone in having little direct control over public transport fares and services. However, it has the advantage, uniquely among the four, of having direct responsibility for both transport and land use. Madrid has an enviable degree of coordinated control over public transport, which has been central to its strategy. Management of the road network is dispersed, but does not appear to pose a serious problem. Its main weakness is its inability to control the pattern of new development. Oslo’s structure is the most complex, with a mix of responsibilities at three tiers of government, and two separate counties responsible for the conurbation. Vienna has the most integrated management of its transport system but, once again, has its land use development managed separately.


Approaches to decision-making

All four cities adopt a mix of vision-led, plan-led and consensus-led approaches. Edinburgh combines all three, but places particular emphasis on planning, followed by extensive consultation. Madrid’s approach has changed over time, with a move away from planning towards a vision-led emphasis. It seeks consensus among the agencies responsible, but has not placed great emphasis on wider consultation. Oslo’s approach is more strongly plan-led, with decisions based on ten year plans rolled forward regularly. Increased emphasis is being placed on consensus-building among the responsible agencies, and wider consultation is a key element in its approach. Vienna has a mixed approach, with less emphasis on analytical planning and the strongest reliance on consensus-building and widespread participation.


Objectives, indicators, targets and problems

This aspect of the case studies reflects the greatest difference in cultural approaches to strategy development. Edinburgh’s approach is clearly objective-led, with objectives, indicators and targets largely selected to reflect the expectations of government. It includes most of the objectives proposed in this guidebook, with the exception of inter-generational equity. Its targets are a mix of outcome (safety, pollution) and intermediate outcome (modal shares). Madrid does not have a clearly stated set of objectives, but is principally concerned with economic growth and equity, and the problems caused by traffic growth. Once again intergenerational equity is not a concern. Its indicators relate principally to modal shares. Oslo adopts virtually the full set of objectives proposed in this Guidebook, with greater emphasis than the others on longer term sustainability; conversely it is less concerned with economic growth. It uses a range of indicators, but they are not well linked to the objectives. Vienna has had an aim of reducing car use for several years, but has only recently specified its objectives. Its principal concerns are environment, health and safety, with some consideration of longer term sustainability.


Policy instruments, barriers and strategy formulation

The balance of strategies differs between cities. All stress public transport investment, and all have pursued innovative solutions. Edinburgh emphasises management of road space and control of land use. Madrid has introduced information systems and some road space management, but places little emphasis on demand management or land use controls. Oslo has invested in road building, but is now focusing on public transport, walking and cycling, land use controls and the potential wider use of road pricing. Vienna has a similar emphasis, but uses parking controls and traffic calming as its main tools for controlling car use. Finance is a barrier in all cities; so is the mix of institutional responsibilities, which particularly limit the ability to manage land use. Public acceptability is a critical issue in Edinburgh and to a lesser extent in Oslo.


Prediction, appraisal and optimisation

All four cities use conventional four stage models to predict the effects of alternative strategies, although Madrid only does so to improve the design of already accepted proposals. Only Edinburgh uses a land use-interaction model, and none as yet uses sketch planning models or optimisation other than for research. Approaches to appraisal differ markedly. Edinburgh and Oslo adopt a combination of cost-benefit analysis and multi-criteria appraisal, as specified by their governments. Madrid adopts a similar approach but only for enhancement of chosen strategies. Vienna has no formal appraisal methods.


Key messages

  • Need to reflect complex decision-making
  • Integration of land use planning is crucial
  • Visions, plans, consensus, participation all key elements
  • Objectives need to be clearly stated
  • Long term sustainability must not be overlooked
  • Outcome targets are more useful than modal shares
  • Land use and demand management need greater emphasis
  • Thorough appraisal is needed to ensure effectiveness

Key messages

All four cities have been very successful and innovative in developing their strategies. However, the above review has highlighted some key messages for the future.

  1. Decision-making contexts are complex and difficult to change; decision-making processes need to be designed to work within this context

  2. However, failure to plan transport and land use together poses serious threats for longer term sustainability, and needs to be addressed by city governments

  3. Visions, plans and consensus are all important elements of decision-making; in addition, the public are increasingly seeking active participation

  4. Some cities are less specific as to their objectives, focusing instead on strategies to reduce car use. There is a danger that this will lead to some key impacts of transport being overlooked

  5. Few cities are currently addressing long term sustainability. While this is understandable, there is a need for an assessment of longer term impacts

  6. Indicators and targets tend to reflect modal shares rather than the impacts of transport on society, which could lead to the latter being overlooked

  7. Public transport improvements are a dominant element of strategy, but they alone will not control overall demand for travel or the growth in car use. Greater emphasis is needed on land use and demand management

  8. A greater emphasis on appraisal could help to ensure that the chosen strategy is the most effective means of meeting the city’s current and long term needs.