Global Økologi februar 2002 no. 1
vol. 9

How do we improve transport in European cities?

By John Whitelegg

This need not be the case. All over Europe there are excellent examples of good transport policies that in small areas and at specific points in time are showing how mobility can be managed to create a civilised urban life style. In this respect Copenhagen is famous for its excellent cycling facilities which are considerably better than London or Manchester. Strasbourg and Vienna are famous for their efficient and comfortable tram systems and Paris for its metro and RER trains. No cities are famous for their walking facilities or walking environment. It is the pedestrian who is usually sacrificed for the freedom of the motorist to drive one tonne of metal at ridiculous speeds in the heart of cities and in the vicinity of residential areas and schools.

The 1994 report of the British Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution "Transport and the Environment" is a catalogue of the design failures in the way we organise, fund and develop transport. Our transport systems particularly in cities are serious sources of air pollution and noise pollution, congestion levels are worsening, the costs of meeting the demand for private motorised transport are escalating, especially in environmental terms and transport is becoming more energy inefficient over time. There are serious doubts about the claims of those who see transport investment (i.e. new roads) as a necessary pre-requisite for economic growth and job creation and there are serious global environmental problems associated with the greenhouse gases from cars, lorries and aircraft. At a time when national governments and the European Union are making commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10% or more by the year 2010 car ownership and use is rising, lorry dependence is intensifying and the distances flown by air passengers are increasing by 10-15% pa. If the design objective is to avoid catastrophic climate change we are not doing very well.

In 1993 the World Health Organisation revised its community noise guidance to reflect advances in the understanding of noise effects on human health. We live in a noisy world and noise from traffic figures prominently in the sources of that noise. More than 50% of the population of Europe is exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding the levels at which people become seriously annoyed during daytime. 17% of the population (c 113 million) are exposed to noise levels that have serious negative impacts (European Commission, 1995). The effects of noise include: noise induced hearing loss, annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance effects, psychophysiological effects, mental health effects, performance effects and effects on residential behaviour.

A review of respiratory diseases in Europe by the World Health Organisation and the European Environment Agency in 1996 indicated that a considerable proportion of the European population is exposed to ambient air pollution at concentrations of concern to health. Ozone pollution episodes are associated with respiratory diseases and nitrogen dioxide from combustion engines with the main precursor of ozone, nitrogen dioxide. Suspended particulate matter (SPM), mainly from diesel engines, is also regarded as a serious health problem. For instance, short term pollution episodes characterised by raised levels of SPM account for 7-10% of all lower respiratory illnesses (4-6 million cases annually) in children living in cities with data on SPM concentrations. This proportion reaches 21% in the most polluted cities.

Indoor noise levels of less than 45 dB(A) are recommended by the WHO 1993 review of noise standards if 100% speech intelligibility is to be guaranteed. Whilst it is possible to produce indoor noise levels lower than this level through double and triple glazing and acoustic engineering it is important to recognise that health and well being require the facility of living indoors with open doors and windows, using balconies and terraces and using gardens. If noise levels that are deemed acceptable on health grounds by the WHO are to be achieved then there will have to be a substantial shift away from motorised transport towards quieter modes and/or a substantial shift of motorised transport into tunnels where noise levels can be contained.

"The car brings freedom, mobility, status and opportunities. Redesigning a built environment to downgrade the importance of this particular piece of technology poses a threat to lifestyles, industries and professions in a way that is new and in this newness lies the bigger problem"

In the early-mid 19th century poor design of housing and the arrangements for providing fresh drinking water and removing human waste were associated with a raised incidence of mortality and morbidity. Traffic and transport presents us with problems of a similar magnitude but in one important respect the problem is far more serious than the one that Victorian engineers and politicians had to face. The fossil fuel based mobility of our time brings with it a great deal of emotional, psychological an ideological baggage that was absent 150 years ago. The car brings freedom, mobility, status and opportunities. Redesigning a built environment to downgrade the importance of this particular piece of technology poses a threat to lifestyles, industries and professions in a way that is new and in this newness lies the bigger problem.

Designing a solution

Donald Appleyard in his highly original book "Liveable Streets" explained the impact of heavy traffic on community interaction and the gains to be had from living on lightly trafficked streets (Appleyard, 1981). Living on streets with heavy traffic actually damages the amount of interaction that goes on. People on heavily trafficked streets do not interact with their neighbours and do not have close friends. Traffic is destroying the fabric of society and neighbourhood. Is it unreasonable to conclude that most people, given a choice, would choose to live on a lightly trafficked or totally traffic free street?

Designing a solution means restructuring space time relationships in cities so that space and time can be reallocated to uses that are benign and nurturing rather than cancerous and destructive. Less space for traffic means more space for people and more space for high quality, affordable housing near to where people want to live and work. Shorter distances means less expenditure of time, effort and money on maintaining a large unwieldy and uneconomic system of motorised mobility. Less time spent in vehicles means reductions in pollution and noise, more time for other activities including interacting with children, friends, neighbours and colleagues and more time for using local facilities e.g. small local shops. More local facilities means more local employment and community diversity and a virtuous cycle of more people using these facilities and then more facilities.

Twenty years of experience on how to improve traffic in cities   Lemgo in Germany has increased bus usage from 40,000 to over one million in one year.   Houten in the Netherlands has developed a comprehensive bicycle-pedestrian network and cut car trips per household by 25 per cent.   The Federal Ministry of Transport in Germany estimates that car sharing will reduce annual vehicle kilometres by 7000 million. In Europe as a whole the figure is put at 30,000 million vehicle kilometres reduction.   In Aachen (Germany) traffic into the city centre has been reduced by 85 per cent over the last ten years, the car's share of transport has gone down from 44 per cent to 36 per cent and NOx pollution has gone down by 50 per cent.   In Bologna a deliberate policy of traffic restraint involving the closing of streets and park and ride produced a 48 per cent drop in motorised traffic entering the historic core and a 64 per cent drop in cars (1982-1989).   In Manchester the Metrolink tram has taken up to 50 per cent of car journeys off roads in the area it serves. It has replaced over one million car journeys into the city centre each year.   Five per cent of car users switched to a new "City Express" bus service in Belfast in the first 6 months of operation.   Edinburgh has set itself a traffic reduction target of 30 per cent.   The "Carte Orange" in Paris covering all modes and introduced in 1975 led to a 36 per cent increase in bus patronage. The London travel card led to a 16 per cent increase in public transport use at a time of decline elsewhere.   The integration of land use planning and transport planning in Portland, Oregon, has led to 30,000 more jobs and 40 per cent of commuters using public transport.   A large project in Perth (Western Australia) has reduced the number of cars per day in Perth by 78,000. This reduction has been achieved by a programme of direct contact with 35,000 residents to discuss with all of them the merits of suing public transport, waking and cycling. This project (the "individualised marketing" project) has enormous potential in Europe.

Choice and diversity: car(e)-free

An EU wide survey in 1991 reported that 71% of those questioned were in favour of limiting car traffic in town centres. There was equally strong support from both urban and rural residents and from frequent car users. The EU has responded to public pressure and to a rising tide of concern about the urban environment with a number of initiatives and proposals about car-free cities. It is highly unlikely that we will see a completely car-free city but very likely indeed that measures will be introduced to keep out lorries completely and to severely restrain cars. Lubeck in Germany has already eliminated cars from a wide swathe of its central area and Leiden in the Netherlands keeps out lorries. Other cities e.g. Delft in the Netherlands and Lucca in Italy have such a narrow streets system that cars, whilst not banned, have a minor presence in the urban area. In the case of Delft this is crucial in its walking and cycling achievements. These modes account for more than 50% of all journeys.

Car free experiments are currently underway in 26 cities in Germany as well as in Amsterdam, Edinburgh, Rotterdam and Vienna. They range from city centre car-free areas as in Lubeck through to reclaimed derelict land as in Edinburgh (Gorgie Goods Yard). Car free city centres involve physical barriers and restrictions with special arrangements for residents to gain access, but only at specified times. Car-free residential areas involve contracts with the residents not to own cars, reduced development costs because of lower levels of provision of roads and parking spaces, more green land and better public transport, walking and cycling facilities.

Car-free concepts offer a practical model of a different kind of reality in urban areas. The German experience shows that car-free residential areas are frequently over-subscribed revealing a large latent demand for living opportunities of this kind. Their importance lies in this demonstration of a viable alternative to the car rather than in their quantitative significance. The dominance of the car as a key component in urban design has now been challenged and the way is clear for more experiments and more diversity in what is offered.

In Germany 200,000 people now belong to organisations that provide vehicles when they are needed to those who have relinquished their own vehicle, thus reducing the pressure or desire to own a car that will most probably be parked on a street for 95% of its "useful" life. These shared vehicle use arrangements are known as "Statt Auto" exploiting the similarities between the German word for city (Stadt) and for "instead of" (Statt). Urban living is conducive to giving up the personally-owned vehicle. Car parking is difficult, cars are expensive, cars may be vandalised and yet they seem to be necessary for some kinds of journey. Statt Auto provides a vehicle for those (few) times when a vehicle is really necessary. The full potential of car sharing in Germany is estimated to be 2.45 million sharing users and 12 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions removed from the German inventory.

Learning by Example

The key to a better environment in European cities is reducing traffic either by significant improvements in the alternatives to the car or by actual restrictions on car traffic and the prices that have to be paid for parking and for using roads. Traffic can also be reduced by good planning so that we discourage low density sprawl out into the countryside and encourage developments that exploit short distances. Politicians are always nervous of pricing and restriction policies though they accept the huge restrictions that car traffic imposes on all of us (accidents, pollution, deaths, damage to community). European urban areas, however, show many good examples of traffic reduction policies as listed in the box.

Achieving significant modal shifts¾shifting people out of cars, creating more liveable cities, towns and rural areas and meeting traffic reduction targets¾is responsive to policy. We can achieve traffic reduction. The relative lack of progress in many larger cities in Europe including Copenhagen in recent years is not indicative of a fundamental problem or even a carefully balanced choice to go for cars and freedom. It is the result of policy that has led in that direction and the time has now come to change that policy so that it moves in another direction.

"Politicians have come to accept the car in cities as inevitable and have accepted that almost everything else can be sacrificed to continue this policy"

In Copenhagen traffic has already reached unacceptable levels and ordinary life in this city is unpleasant. One of the finest cities in Europe has been sacrificed to the car. This need not be so and is not inevitable. A transformation in Copenhagen could be produced in less than 2 years. The city should set a target of a 30% reduction in traffic. Approximately 25% of all streets should be closed to through traffic with full account taken of the needs of businesses and local residents. Lorries and delivery vehicles making individual deliveries should be excluded from most of the central area. Deliveries can be organised like postal services so that smaller and environmentally friendly vehicles make one "drop" on a street rather than 10 lorries making one "drop" each. Pavements and cycling facilities should be improved with more space given to these transport users. All this can be done in ways that guarantee the economic success of the city. Copenhagen would once again become a world class city and set the example that others would follow.

Every European city has the potential to cut traffic levels by at least 30%. The impact of this would be dramatic in improving the quality of life of everyone. The best practice examples of how to do this exist in most countries including Copenhagen's cycling facilities. The only obstacle to this very rapid improvement in quality of life, independence of children and health of everyone is the politician. Politicians have come to accept the car in cities as inevitable and have accepted that almost everything else can be sacrificed to continue this policy

John Whitelegg is professor at Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, England.