Topics : Issues of urban transportation

Examples of U.S.A., Germany, and U.K.

Country Planning and International Planning

I. INTRODUCTION

Urban transportation challenges are crucial to enable passenger mobility in significant urban
agglomerations since an increasing proportion of the world's population now resides in cities. Due to
the various forms of transportation, a large number of sources and destinations, and the volume and
variety of traffic, urban transportation is extremely complex. As cities were seen as places of intense
human contact with complex traffic patterns connected to commuting, business transactions, and
leisure/cultural activities, the focus of urban transportation has historically been on passengers. Cities
are, however, also sites of production, consumption, and distribution, all of which are connected to
the movement of freight. Conceptually, the relationship between the urban transportation network,
urban form, and spatial organization is complex. Urban transportation is a significant aspect of
mobility, especially in densely populated areas.
The future vision of a state, region, or community is fundamentally dependent on
transportation planning. It entails a thorough examination of all potential courses of action, a
thorough evaluation process that takes into account many points of view, cooperative involvement of
pertinent transportation-related authorities and organizations, and transparent, prompt, and
meaningful public participation.
A proactive public participation strategy is used in transportation planning to encourage
engagement from all system users, including businesses, community organizations, environmental
groups, the traveling public, freight operators, and the general public.
In urbanized areas, a Metropolitan Planning Organization manages the transportation planning
process in collaboration with the State Department of Transportation and transit operators. The state
manages transportation planning processes in rural areas in collaboration with local government
representatives from non-metropolitan areas and transit service providers.

II. CONTENT

Urban transportation is the collection of means we use to transport passengers and goods into, out
of, and within city limits.Urbanization is being shaped by transportation, which has an impact on the
spatial organization of cities. The capacity of urban transportation to manage this density while moving
people and products is its defining characteristic. Urban mobility is hampered by density because of
congestion and the high cost of building infrastructure in populated places.

Transportation Planning

Transportation planning is the process of regulating and controlling the provision of transport to
facilitate the efficient operation of the economic, social and political life of the country at the lowest
social cost.

Purpose of Transportation Planning

Ø Identifying multiple options for transportation
Ø Identifying outlying problems to a transportation system
Ø Identifying solutions to those identified problems
Ø Recalling the purpose of the construction design
Ø Optimization of existing transportation systems and structural design

Transportation Planning Goals

There are numerous important goals in the transportation planning process . The key is to
balance them while designing a plan that meets the Transportation Planning Goals.
Access to Employment: Provide for transportation system connections to areas of employment
density and key activity centers, with an emphasis on connecting to areas of high poverty rates.
Freight Mobility: Enhance freight corridors and intermodal connections to facilitate goods
movement into, within and out of the region.
Safety & Security: Provide for transportation improvements that increase safety and security for
system users.
System Reliability: Implement technologies and programs to improve travel times and support
the ease of travel throughout the region.
Congestion Mitigation: Support transportation system improvements that address existing and
expected future traffic congestion.
Environment & Air Quality: Provide for project alternatives that protect and enhance the region’s
natural resources.
Multimodal Connectivity: Improve accessibility and interconnectivity of various transportation
modes for all systems users.
Preservation & Maintenance: Ensure that existing transportation infrastructure and facilities
achieve a constant state of good repair.
Transportation Planning Process

The primary aim of transport planning is the identification and evaluation of the future
transport needs. The basis of transport planning process has been depicted in Figure 9.1.

The four main stages of the transportation planning process are:

a. Transportation survey, data collection and analysis;
b. Use of transportation model;
c. Future land use forecasts and alternative policy strategies; and
d. Policy evaluation.

a. Survey and Data Collection:

Planners and development experts will conduct studies of the current transportation
demand and infrastructure. To examine the present and long-term transportation requirements of
a town, they will overlay additional pertinent data, such as population forecasts and growth
trends. Depending on the modes of transportation and the desired results, this work may be
carried out at the local, regional, state, or even national level.
 The entire planning process of transportation, may be local, regional or national, is based
on survey and data collection. This includes all types of literature and data (both government and
non-government) available on transportation, journey behaviour patterns, nature and intensity of
traffic, freight structure, cost and benefits, i.e., income, employment estimates, etc.

The comprehensive knowledge of traffic flows and patterns within a defined area is
essential. In addition to traffic data, planners also require land use and population data for their
study area. In this connection West Midlands Transportation Study (1968) provides a format,
which is useful for transport survey and data collection (Figure 9.2).

The survey should be well defined and be divided in ‘zones’ so that origins and
destinations of trips can be geographically monitored. The data collection regarding existing
travel patterns is time consuming as well as a costly affair. It involves both ‘roadside-interview’
and ‘home-interview’. The variables for both types of interviews are given in the Table 9.1

The details-of existing transport network are an important source of information. In some
cases, a very detailed description of links and nodes in terms of vehicle speed, carriage-way
width and nodal type is collected. Travel times and network characteristics of public transport
networks are simultaneously collected. Finally, data processing should be done. When this has
been completed, planners can begin their data analysis.

b. The Transportation Model:

A transportation model can be used by planners to forecast future regional transportation
planning and requirements after they are familiar with the traffic patterns and land use data. This
model is the key to predicting future travel demands and network needs and is derived in four
recognised stages, i.e., trip generation, trip distribution, traffic assignment and model split.

1. Trip Generation:
The first stage of model building process is that of trip generation. Trips are made for a variety of
purposes and for various land uses. For convenience, trips are often split into two groups:

i. Home-based trips:
Such trips have one trip end at the home of the person making the trip, which may
be either the origin or destination of the given trip.

ii. Non-home-based trips:

These have neither origin nor destination trip-end at the home of the person
making the trip.

This initial part of the transport model expresses trip-making relationships in a

mathematical form so that ultimately we can calculate the total number of trips-ends originating
from the defined survey zones.

Consequently, a more recent approach to trip generation has been to use a technique
known as ‘category analysis’. The trip-generation stage of the planning process estimates the
total number of trips originating in the survey area at one or more future dates.

2. Trip Distribution:
 It is the function of trip distribution to calculate the number of trips between one zone and
another, given the previously determined numbers of trip ends in each zone together with further
information on the transport facilities available between these zones.

3. Traffic Assignment:
The third stage of the modelling process is that of traffic assignment, its aim being to
stimulate route choice through a defined transport network. Traffic assignment may be
considered in two parts.

First, it is necessary to define the transport network and determine criteria for route
choice through the network. Second, using the inter-zonal trip matrix as the input data, trips are
assigned to this network.

When future trip levels are assigned it is possible to assess deficiencies in the existing
transport network and so determine a list of construction priorities. Network description refers to
the process where the highway network is broken down into links and nodes. For each link, data
is required on its length, road type, vehicle travel time and traffic capacity. When coding the road
network, links are usually identified by the node numbers at each of its ends. In addition to such
route-intersection nodes, zone-centroid nodes are also defined. In the assignment process, all
traffic originating in a particular traffic zone is assumed to be loaded on to the network at this
latter type of node.

The early transportation studies used manual assignment techniques, but with the
universal use of computer analysis, the transport network can be specified to the computer in a
most detailed manner. Special data collection surveys (especially of journey times) are usually
needed to provide this network specification information.

4. Model Split:
This term is used by transport planners to describe the phase where the choice of travel
mode is incorporated into the model. The positioning of this stage is neither fixed nor singularly
definable since elements of model split are part of the other stages. Its position within the
transportation model differs between studies. It is either used at the trip generation stage by
stratifying the total trips or at the assignment stage of the model. The main purpose of the model-
split stage is to determine the trip shares of public, as against private, transport.

c. Future Land Use and Travel Demand Forecasting:

The forecasting of future land use inputs is a precarious task, for two important reasons.
Firstly, transport planners have to rely on the judgment of to the types of planner for most of
their land use forecasts. This information is vitally important since it has a profound effect upon
travel forecasts. Secondly, long-term forecasting is beset with many statistical problems.

Since transportation planners are usually working at least 10, and sometimes 25 years
ahead, their estimates are inevitably open to much criticism. Nevertheless, estimates of future
travel demands have to be made using the best methods, which are available. Some of these
forecasting problems are amplified below in the listing of the main land use inputs necessary for
travel forecasts to be made.

The most important variables are:

(i) Population – its size, age structure and distribution.

(ii) Employment – as the journey to work is the greatest travel demand.

(iii) Personal income and expenditure.

The above groups of variables have a compound influence upon the overall level of
demand for travel at some future date. Further complications arise when their impact upon the
spatial pattern of this demand is assessed. So, forecasts of population and economic variables are
an important input into the use of the transportation model for forecasting future travel demands.

d. Evaluation:
The final stage of the transportation planning process is one of evaluating the alternative
policies, which have been suggested. The evaluation stage is probably the most important of all,
yet has received only limited research attention. An economic evaluation of transport proposals
is necessary because vehicle-km and road space are commodities, which are not directly bought
and sold.
 The technique of cost benefit analysis has consequently evolved as an investment
criterion in the public sector. As such, it provides an economic evaluation. On the cost side of the
calculation, estimates are made for capital outlay, land purchase and maintenance.

The benefits are those accruing to users, e.g., savings in time, vehicle operation and
accidents. The individual costs and benefits are assessed over a particular number of years and
discounted back to the base year so that a rate of return can be calculated. On the basis of
‘transportation plan’, transport policies should be formulated and implemented properly so that
systematic ‘sustainable’ development of transport can be done.

Transport Policy:
Nowadays every country is particular regarding the planned development of transport
system, thus formulate their own transport policy, which depends upon their needs and resources.
The nature of transport policy varies with time and space. In formulating transport policy, one
should take into consideration the ‘coordination’ and ‘competition’.

The coordination involves the relationship between two or more different modes of
transport. On the others hand, competition has occurred as a consequence of the public/private
sector interaction. The transport policy also differs with the type of government, i.e., socialistic,
democratic, etc. Inspite of variations in policy, which are natural, there are certain points which
are useful if incorporated in transport policy. The points are from transport policies of the
countries like USA, UK, Netherland, and European Union. These are as follows:

Transport Demand Management in USA:

‘Transport Demand Management’ (TDM) system as a part of transport policy has been
adopted in USA. TDM is the art of modifying travel behaviour in order to reduce the number of
trips or modify their nature. It may be categorised according to whether it mainly affects trip
generation, trip distribution, and model choice or route selection. As Table 9.2 shows, some
implementation strategies rely on changes to the transport system, others on land use policies and
still others on alterations to employment conditions and social values.

In the field of TDM, the USA has done considerable work. Persuading a number of large
companies to introduce flexible working hours (‘flexitime’) is a logical way to reduce congestion
at peak periods. The introduction of car-pooling is another step in this direction. The most TDM
measures are ones that require employers to reduce the number of peak-period car trips made by
their worker. In USA at least 20 suburban communities have enacted such programmes.

The Fiscal Year 2022-2026 Strategic Plan establishes the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s strategic goals and objectives. This is a roadmap for transformative investments
that will modernize our infrastructure to deliver safer, cleaner, and more equitable transportation
systems.

Strategic Goals

Safety

Make our transportation system safer for all people. Advance a future without
transportation-related serious injuries and fatalities.

Economic Strength and Global Competitiveness

Grow an inclusive and sustainable economy. Invest in our transportation system

to provide American workers and businesses reliable and efficient access to resources,
markets, and good-paying jobs.
Equity

Reduce inequities across our transportation systems and the communities they
affect. Support and engage people and communities to promote safe, affordable,
accessible, and multimodal access to opportunities and services while reducing
transportation-related disparities, adverse community impacts, and health effects.

Climate and Sustainability

Tackle the climate crisis by ensuring that transportation plays a central role in the
solution. Substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transportation-
related pollution and build more resilient and sustainable transportation systems to benefit
and protect communities.

Transformation

Design for the future. Invest in purpose-driven research and innovation to meet
the challenges of the present and modernize a transportation system of the future that
serves everyone today and in the decades to come.

Organizational Excellence

Strengthen our world-class organization. Advance the Department’s mission by

establishing policies, processes, and an inclusive and innovative culture to effectively
serve communities and responsibly steward the public's resources.
Netherlands’s Policy for ‘Sustainable Development:
National Environmental Policy Plan or NEPP of Netherland has been adopted in 1989.
NEPP is an example of environmental protection as well as policy for the control of pollution
created by transport. The NEPP recognises that safeguarding environmental quality on behalf of
what it calls ‘sustainable development’ will be a process that will last for several decades. The
NEPP is the first step in this process: it contains the medium-term strategy for environmental
policy, which is directed at the attainment for sustainable development over the longer period.

The objectives of the NEPP are:

1. Vehicles must be as clean, quiet, safe and economical as possible;
2. The choice or mode for passenger transport must result in the lowest possible energy
consumptions and the least possible pollution; and
3. The locations where people live, shop, work and spend their leisure time will be
coordinated in such a way that the need to travel is minimised.
The approach of the NEPP is shown in Figure 9.3. As pollution from road traffic is seen as a
three-step process, these objectives are to be met through a ‘three-track’ response, the tracks
being those of technical vehicle standards, reducing ‘automobility’ and instigating urban traffic
measures.
 As shown in Figure 9.3, the three-track approach has been developed to the abatement of
environmental pollution. The first track consists of a series of measures to convert the vehicle
fleet into one that is the cleanest possible.

The second track, of reducing car use, aims to shift people from cars to public transport
for the longer journeys and to cycling or walking for the shorter ones. This is to be achieved
through provision of more and better facilities for cycling and public transport, more subsidies,
better fare and ticket integration and publicity campaigns.
However, it is recognised that if the policy is to seek a balance between individual
freedom, accessibility and the environment, the only way to achieve this is to control the use of
cars. Therefore, the strategy is to increase variable motoring costs through fuel taxation and road
pricing. Car commuting will be discouraged through a variety of TDM measures including
‘kilometre reduction plans’, whereby companies and institutions will have to draw up and then
implement plans to reduce the distance travelled by employees in the course of work and in
commuting to it.
Additionally, the second track will improve the transport of freight by rail and water and
will tighten up physical planning policy, to ensure that businesses which are labour-intensive or
amenities which attract numerous visitors are not permitted to locate at places which are not well
served by public transport.
 As well as having cleaner vehicles, which are used less, the NEPP recognises – the third
‘track’ – that further measures are necessary to alleviate the problems at a local scale. These
include stricter enforcement of parking controls, traffic management to influence drivers’ choice
of routes, circulation schemes to slow traffic and similar measures to improve road safety and
increase environmental protection.
The most noticeable feature of the NEPP is the way that its individual measures reinforces each
other, to produce an integrated package which links environmental, transport and land use policy.
Yet even this impressive, comprehensive approach comes nowhere near solving the problems.
Without the NEPP, car-kilometres had been expected to rise by 72 per cent over the period 1986-
2010.
With the NEPP this increase is lowered to 48 per cent, a worthwhile reduction but still a
very long way from a sustainable level of transport use. The NEPP must be seen only as the first
stage in a long-term drive towards sustainability: it serves to illustrate what a difficult task lies
ahead of the Dutch (and indeed all motorised countries).

Transport Policy in UK:

Due to geographical conditions, UK always remains very particular regarding its
transport development and policy. Since 1945, UK has done considerable changes in its transport
policy.

In general, three particular phases can be distinguished:

a. 1945-51: The genesis of nationalised transport sector, with increasing regulation in

order to restrict competition, coordination of transport services was envisaged
through state (i.e., common) ownership.
b. 1951-68: A gradual relaxation of regulation and control, with the aim of allowing
natural tendencies to determine the direction of transport policy.
c. 1968-77: Coordination through competition remains foremost, but more resources
have been allocated to propping up and rationalising an ailing public transport sector.
The notable points of UK’s transport policy (1970) are:
a. The transport infrastructure and services (rail, road, ports, etc.) must be modernised.
Since total resources are limited, this means planning investment as a whole,
increasing productivity and developing better criteria to assist choice.
b. The problem of traffic conditions in towns must be given greater priority,
c. The transport system must take account of the social as well as economic needs of the
country.
d. Public transport must play a key role in solving the transport problems.

Five areas of concern are also identified:

a. There is still no proper framework for the effective coordination of transport policy,
b. The social problem of ensuring adequate public transport for those without cars is
becoming more pressing.
c. Concern for the environment and the quality of life has increased dramatically in
recent years.

d. The energy crisis of 1973 has necessitated a revision of car ownership forecasts.

e. Overshadowing all the above developments is the need for public expenditure
restrictions.

Following Britain’s accession to the EEC in 1973, the transport policy has also been
changed accordingly but its basic features remained the same.

Example of the European Union (EU):

The EU has not yet been able to evolve a common policy for the development of
transport. Within the EU there are differences between members states in their philosophical
position towards transport, with the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ approach focusing on economic efficiency
and contrasting strongly with French-German-Scandinavian attitudes in which efficiency is more
usually seen as secondary to the wider role of transport within economic and social planning.
 This conflict between the interests of member states produces an unstable policy
environment and one which is far from ideal for the task of producing profound insights or long-
term goals. There are further complications as a result of the fact that the EU does not form a
contiguous geographical space, with Greece physically separate and routes having to pass
through third-party countries such as Switzerland in order to connect two members such as
Germany and Italy. Not surprisingly, by the time the Single Economic Market (SEM) came into
existence in 1993 a common market in transport still had not been achieved.

The main policy objectives at the European level are now:

1. An economic and regulatory framework for transport, including harmonization of
fiscal policies and fair comparison and assessment of different transport projects;
2. New research and development initiative;
3. Standardization and technical regulation, e.g., road pricing technology;
4. Development of trans-European networks; and
5. Information exchange, including better quality transport statistics, which will assist the
objective of ‘sustainable mobility’.

Policy for Sustainable Transport:

Sustainable means “that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs”.

For transport to be sustainable, it must satisfy three basic conditions:

1. Its rates of use of renewable resources do not exceed their rates of regeneration;

2. Its rates of use for non-renewable resources do not exceed the rate at which sustainable
renewable substitutes are developed; and

3. Its rates of pollution emission do not exceed the assimilative capacity of the
environment.
Issues of Urban Transportation

The biggest transportation problems arise when urban transportation systems fall short of
meeting urban mobility needs.

1. Urban Transportation at the Crossroads

Cities are areas where economic activity is highly concentrated and accumulated. They
are intricate spatial structures supported by several systems of infrastructure, including
transportation. Greater complexity and disruption possibilities come with larger cities, especially
when this complexity is not adequately managed. The ability of an urban area's transportation
infrastructure to transfer people, goods, and freight between various origins and destinations is
crucial to the city's productivity. Additionally, transportation hubs like ports, airports, and rail
yards are positioned in metropolitan areas, which aids in securing a city's position within a local
and international mobility system.

However, terminals and transportation infrastructure also play a role in a particular set of
problems. While certain problems, like traffic congestion (which affected ancient cities like
Rome), are more recent, others, like the distribution of urban freight or environmental effects, are
not.

A. Traffic Congestion and Parking Difficulties

One of the most common transportation issues in dense metropolitan areas is congestion.
Although it can happen in any city, congestion is more common in those with more than one
million residents. These buildings are substantial and intricate enough to produce situations that
result in a systematic level of congestion. In addition to scale and complexity, the motorization
of society and the widespread use of the automobile have raised the need for transportation
infrastructure. However, the infrastructure supply has frequently been unable to keep up with the
rate of increase in mobility. Motorization has increased both the need for road infrastructure and
parking space because automobiles spend the bulk of their time in parking lots. As a result, there
were issues with footprint, especially in the city's core where parked cars leave a big carbon
footprint and use up precious resources. Drivers today are three times more likely to experience
traffic congestion than they were in the second half of the 20th century.
Congestion and parking are also interrelated since street parking consumes transport
capacity, removing one or two lanes for circulation along urban roads. Further, looking for a
parking space (called “cruising”) creates additional delays and impairs local circulation. In
central areas of large cities, cruising may account for more than 10% of the local circulation, as
drivers can spend up to 20 minutes looking for a parking spot. This practice is often judged more
economically effective than using a paying off-street parking facility. The time spent looking for
a free (or low cost) parking space is compensated by the incurred monetary savings. Parking also
impairs deliveries as many delivery vehicles will double-park at the closest possible spot to
unload their cargo.
Identifying the true cause of congestion is a strategic issue for urban planning since
congestion is commonly the outcome of circumstances specific to a city, such as the lack of
parking or poorly synchronized traffic signals.

B. Longer Commuting

The amount of time people spend traveling between their homes and places of
employment is rising, along with traffic. The affordability of housing, which is a key driver of
this trend because housing is more affordable the farther you are from the city center (where
most of the jobs are still) As a result, commuters trade their commute time for more affordable
accommodation. Long commutes, however, are associated with a number of social issues,
including isolation (less time spent with family or friends) and worse health (obesity). The time
spent traveling comes at the expense of other social and professional pursuits. However,
commuters may now complete a range of things while on the road thanks to information
technologies like smartphones.
C. Public Transport Inadequacy
Since there are peaks and valleys in the demand for public transportation, many public
transit systems, or portions of them, are either over or underutilized. Users experience discomfort
during busy times as the system adjusts to a brief increase in demand. Due of this, it becomes
difficult to provide enough transit infrastructure and services. Planning for average capacity will
result in congestion during peak hours, while planning for peak capacity leaves the system
significantly underutilized during off-peak hours.

Many services are financially unsustainable due to low ridership, especially in suburban
areas where the density is insufficient to support such services. Nearly all public transit systems
are unable to make enough money to cover their running and capital expenses, despite major
subsidies and cross-financing (such as tolls). Public transportation's financial burden is a topic
that is receiving more and more attention, despite the fact that in the past deficits were
considered acceptable due to the vital service it provided for urban mobility.

D. Difficulties for Non-Motorized Transport

These issues are either the result of heavy traffic, which restricts the mobility of
bicyclists, walkers, and other non-motorized vehicles, or they are the direct result of a flagrant
disregard for bicyclists and pedestrians in the physical design of infrastructure and amenities. On
the other hand, the installation of bicycle routes reduces the capacity of the roads and the
available parking. The allocation of more space for non-motorized transportation than the actual
demand for mobility would result in a negative consequence and worsen congestion.

E. Loss of Public Space

In most cases, public roadways are open to all. Markets, agoras, parades and processions,
games, and exchanges among neighbors are only a few examples of the public events that are
negatively impacted by increased traffic. These have slowly vanished, being replaced by cars.
These activities have often been moved to retail centers, but in other cases they have also been
completely abandoned. The way that residents interact with one another and use the streets is
influenced by traffic movements. Interactions between people and street activity are hampered
by increased traffic. When traffic is heavy, people typically bike and walk less.

F. High Infrastructure Maintenance Costs

Cities with old transportation systems are under pressure to update to more up-to-date
infrastructure and must shoulder rising maintenance expenditures. Maintenance and repair
activities impede circulation in addition to the associated expenditures. Delaying maintenance
often results in lower current expenses, but at the penalty of increased future costs and,
occasionally, the danger of infrastructure breakdown. The cost of maintenance and its financial
burden increase with the size of the road and highway network. The same is true for public
transportation infrastructure, which needs a strategy for system-wide upkeep.

G. Environmental Impacts And Energy Consumption

Urban inhabitants' quality of life and even health are being hampered by pollution, which
includes noise from traffic. Additionally, the dependence on petroleum has rapidly expanded
along with the energy consumption of urban transportation. These factors are becoming more
closely related to peak mobility expectations, where high energy prices encourage a move
towards public transit as a more effective and environmentally friendly mode of urban
transportation. Urban transportation systems are under pressure to become carbon-free,
especially as alternative energy sources like electric cars gain popularity.

H. Accidents And Safety

A rise in accidents and fatalities, particularly in developing countries, is associated with

an increase in the intensity of mobility in metropolitan areas. An important portion of recurring
delays from congestion are caused by accidents. People feel less safe using the streets when
traffic volume rises. Information technology's spread produces strange results. Although users
have access to accurate location and navigational data, portable devices provide distractions that
have been related to an increase in accidents for both pedestrians and automobiles.

I. Land Footprint

The automobile has the largest environmental impact of all modes of transportation. Due
to the over-reliance on the infrastructure supporting road traffic, between 30 and 60% of a
metropolitan area may be allocated to transportation. However, because mobility is a sign of
effectiveness and wealth, this footprint also emphasizes the strategic significance of
transportation in the economic and social wellbeing of cities.

J. Freight Distribution

The amount of freight traveling within cities has increased as a result of globalization and
rising living standards. The mobility of freight in metropolitan settings has come under increased
scrutiny because it frequently uses the same infrastructures as passenger transportation. The
expansion of e-commerce and home delivery has put further strain on the freight's ability to
move around cities. Delivery times and parking are just two examples of the numerous
difficulties faced by urban freight distribution that might be mitigated by city logistics
solutions.Many dimensions of the urban transport challenge are linked to the dominance of the
automobile.

2. Automobile Dependency

Automobile use is related to a variety of advantages, such as on-demand mobility,

comfort, status, speed, and convenience. These advantages jointly illustrate why automobile
ownership continues to grow worldwide, especially in urban areas and developing economies.
When given a choice and the opportunity, most individuals will prefer using an automobile.
Several factors influence the growth of the total vehicle fleet, such as sustained economic growth
(increase in income and quality of life), complex individual urban movement patterns (many
households have more than one automobile), more leisure time, and suburbanization (areas
where mobility options are limited). Therefore, rising automobile mobility can be perceived as a
positive consequence of economic development. The automotive sector, particularly car
manufacturing, is a factor of economic growth, multiplying effects, and job creation, which can
be actively promoted.

3. Congestion

Congestion occurs when transport demand exceeds transport supply at a specific point in
time and in a specific section of the transport system. Under such circumstances, each vehicle
impairs the mobility of others.
Congestion can be perceived as an unavoidable consequence of the usage of scarce transport
resources, particularly if they are not priced. The last decades have seen the extension of roads in
urban areas, most of them free of access. Those infrastructures were designed for speed and high
capacity, but the growth of urban circulation occurred at a rate higher than often expected. Road
infrastructures that were designed to be more than adequate a couple of decades earlier were then
found to run out of capacity faster than expected. Investments came from diverse levels of
government intending to provide accessibility to cities and regions. There were strong incentives
for the expansion of road transportation by providing high levels of transport supply. This has
created a vicious circle of congestion, which supports the construction of additional road
capacity and automobile dependency. Urban congestion mainly concerns two domains of
circulation, often sharing the same infrastructures: Passengers and Freight.

Vicious Circle of Congestion

4. Mitigating Urban Congestion

In some areas, the automobile is the only mode for which adequate transportation
infrastructures are provided. This implies less capacity for using alternative modes such as
transit, walking, and cycling. At some levels of density, no public infrastructure investment can
be justified in terms of economic returns. Longer commuting trips in terms of average travel
time, the result of fragmented land uses, and congestion levels are significant trends. A
convergence of traffic is taking place at major highways serving low-density areas with high
levels of automobile ownership and low levels of automobile occupancy. The result is energy
(fuel) wasted during congestion (additional time) and supplementary commuting distances. In
automobile-dependent cities, a few measures can help alleviate congestion to some extent:

 Ramp metering. Controlling access to a congested highway by letting automobiles in

one at a time instead of in random groups. The outcome is a lower disruption in highway
traffic flows through better merging from the ramp.
 Traffic signal synchronization. Tuning the traffic signals to the time and direction of
traffic flows. This is particularly effective if the signals can be adjusted hourly to reflect
changes in circulation patterns. Trucks can be allowed to pass traffic lights through
delayed signals, which reduces the risk of accidents through sudden collisions with a car
breaking at a yellow light. Therefore, trucks are less likely to be the first vehicle at a red
light, which increases capacity because trucks have lower acceleration.
 Incident management. Making sure that vehicles involved in accidents or mechanical
failures are removed as quickly as possible from the road. Since accidents account for 20
to 30% of all the causes of congestion, this strategy is particularly important.
 Vehicle restrictions. This can take place over access and ownership. Vehicle access to
specific parts of a city, such as a central business district, can be restricted permanently,
or at certain points in time. This incites users to rely on another mode to reach these
destinations. Several cities and countries (e.g. Singapore) have quotas in the number of
license plates that can be issued or require high licensing fees. To purchase a vehicle, an
individual thus must first secure a license through an auction. Such strategies, however,
go against market principles.
 Sharing vehicles. Concerns two issues. The first is providing ridership to people (often
co-workers) having a similar origin, destination, and commuting time. Two or more
vehicle trips can thus be combined into one, which is commonly referred to
as carpooling. The second involves a pool of vehicles (mostly cars, but also bicycles)
that can be leased or shared for a short duration when mobility is required. Adequate
measures must be taken so that supply and demand are effectively matched with
information technologies providing effective support.
 HOV lanes. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes ensure that vehicles with two or more
passengers (buses, taxis, vans, carpool, etc.) have exclusive access to a less congested
lane, particularly during peak hours.
 Congestion pricing. A variety of measures are aimed at imposing charges on specific
segments or regions of the transport system, mainly as a toll. The charges can also vary
during the day to reflect congestion levels so that drivers are incited to consider other
time periods or other modes. This can involve lanes being restricted to vehicles willing to
pay a toll.
 Parking management. Removing parking or free parking spaces can be an effective
dissuasion tool since it reduces cruising and enables those willing to pay to access an area
(e.g. for a short shopping stop). Parking spaces should be treated as scarce assets subject
to a price structure reflecting the willingness to pay. Further, planning regulations provide
an indirect subsidy to parking by enforcing minimum parking space requirements based
on the facility type and the density of the land use.
 Public transit. Offering alternatives to driving can significantly improve efficiency,
notably if it circulates on its own infrastructure (subway, light rail, buses on reserved
lanes, etc.) and is well integrated within urban development plans. Financial incentives
can be offered, such as discounted monthly passes for commuters. However, public
transit has its own set of issues (see the next section about urban transit challenges).
 Micro-mobility (Non-motorized transportation). Since most urban trips are over short
distances, non-motorized modes, particularly walking, cycling, and e-bikes, have an
important role in supporting urban mobility, also known as micro-mobility. The provision
of adequate infrastructure, such as sidewalks, is often a low priority as non-motorized
transportation is often perceived as not modern despite the important role it needs to
assume in urban areas.

Tools for Mitigating Urban Road Congestion

 All these measures only partially address the issue of congestion, as they alleviate but do
not solve the problem. Fundamentally, congestion remains a sign of economic success, but a
failure to reconcile rising mobility demands and acute supply constraints.

5. The Urban Transit Challenge

As cities continue to become more dispersed, the cost of building and operating public
transportation systems increases. For instance, as of 2021, about 205 urban agglomerations
had a subway system, the vast majority of them being in developed economies. Furthermore,
dispersed residential patterns characteristic of automobile-dependent cities make public
transportation systems less convenient for supporting urban mobility. Additional investments in
public transit often do not result in significant additional ridership. Unplanned and uncoordinated
land development has led to the rapid expansion of the urban periphery. By selecting housing in
outlying areas, residents restrict their potential access to public transportation. Over-investment
(when investments do not appear to imply significant benefits) and under-investment (when there
is a substantial unmet demand) in public transit are both complex challenges.

Urban transit is often perceived as the most efficient transportation mode for urban areas,
notably large cities. However, surveys reveal a stagnation of public transit systems, especially
in North America, where ridership levels have barely changed in the last 30 years. The economic
relevance of public transit is being questioned. Most urban transit developments had little impact
on alleviating congestion despite mounting costs and heavy subsidies. This paradox is partially
explained by the spatial structure of contemporary cities, which are oriented along with servicing
individual mobility needs. Thus, the automobile remains the preferred mode of urban
transportation.

Besides, public transit is publicly owned, implying a politically motivated service that
provides limited economic returns. Even in transit-oriented cities, transit systems depend
massively on government subsidies. Little or no competition within the public transit system is
permitted as wages and fares are regulated, undermining any price adjustments to ridership
changes. Thus, public transit often serves the purpose of public service as it provides
accessibility and social equity, but with limited relationships with economic activities. Among
the most difficult challenges facing urban transit are:

 Decentralization. Public transit systems are not designed to service low-density and
scattered urban areas dominating the urban landscape. The greater the decentralization of
urban activities, the more difficult and expensive it becomes to serve urban areas with
public transit. Additionally, decentralization promotes long-distance trips on transit
systems causing higher operating costs and revenue issues for flat-fare transit systems.
 Fixity. The infrastructures of several public transit systems, notably rail and subway
systems, are fixed, while cities are dynamic entities, even if the pace of change can take
decades. This implies that travel patterns tend to change with a transit system built for
servicing a specific pattern that may eventually face spatial obsolescence; the pattern it
was designed to serve may no longer exist.
 Connectivity. Public transit systems are often independent of other modes and terminals.
It is consequently difficult to transfer passengers from one system to the other. This leads
to a paradox between the preference of riders to have direct connections and the need to
provide a cost-efficient service network that involves transfers.
 Automobile competition. Given cheap and ubiquitous road transport systems, public
transit faced strong competition and lost ridership in relative terms and, in some cases, in
absolute terms. The higher the level of automobile dependency, the more inappropriate
the public transit level of service. The convenience of the automobile outpaces the public
service being offered.
 Construction and maintenance costs. Public transit systems, particularly heavy rail, are
capital-intensive to build, operate, and maintain. Cost varies depending on local
conditions such as density and regulations, but average construction costs are around
$300 million per km. However, there are exceptions where cost overruns can be
substantial because of capture by special interest groups such as labor unions,
construction companies, and consulting firms. When there is inefficient regulatory
oversight, these actors will converge to extract as much rent as possible from public
transit capital improvements. The world’s highest subway construction costs are in New
 York. For instance, the Second Avenue subway extension in Manhattan, completed in
2015, was done at the cost of $1.7 billion per km, five to seven times the average in
comparable cities such as Paris or London. This project employed four times more labor,
with construction costs 50% higher.
 Fare structures. Historically, most public transit systems have abandoned a distance-
based fare structure for a simpler flat fare system. This had the unintended consequence
of discouraging short trips, for which most transit systems are well suited for, and
encouraging longer trips that tend to be costlier per user than the fares they generate.
Information systems offer the possibility for transit systems to move back to a more
equitable distance-based fare structure, particularly with smartcards that enable charging
according to the point of entry and exit within the public transit system.
 Legacy costs. Most public transit systems employ unionized labor that has consistently
used strikes (or the threat of labor disruptions) and the acute disruptions they create as
leverage to negotiate favorable contracts, including health and retirement benefits. Since
public transit is subsidized, these costs were not well reflected in the fare systems. In
many transit systems, additional subsidies went into compensation or covered past debt,
not necessarily into performance improvements or additional infrastructure. As most
governments face stringent budgetary constraints because of social welfare commitments,
public transit agencies are being forced to reassess their budgets through an unpopular
mix of higher fares, deferred maintenance, and the breaking of labor contracts.
 Self-driving vehicles. Developments in information technologies underline that self-
driving vehicles could be deployed in large numbers. Such a development would entail
point-to-point services by on-demand vehicles and a much better utilization level of such
assets. This system could compete directly with transit systems due to its convenience,
comfort, and likely affordability.

Therefore, public transit systems are challenged to remain relevant to urban

mobility as well as to increase their market share. The increasing volatility in petroleum prices
provides uncertainties in the costs of transit fleet ownership and operations and how effective it
is to convert transit fleets to alternative energy sources such as LNG and electricity. A younger
generation with a preference for living in higher-density areas perceives the automobile as a less
attractive proposition than the prior generations. Electronic fare systems are also making the
utilization of public transit more convenient. A recent trend concerns the usage of incentives,
such as point systems (e.g. air miles with the purchase of a monthly pass), to promote public
transit and influence consumer behavior. Yet, evidence underlines that the inflation-adjusted
cost of using public transit is increasing, implying that the cost advantage of public transit over
the automobile is not changing in a significant manner. If self-driving vehicles become a
possibility, many highly subsidized transit systems may have a limited competitive advantage.
Under such circumstances, the fate of many surface public transit systems will be in question,
particularly in suburban areas.

A 2012 ADB study identified the main challenges the Philippine transportation faced:
 Poor quality of road network
 Poor intermodal integration
 Weak sector governance and institutional capacity
 Lack of quality urban transport systems
 Limited private investment in transport infrastructure

III. REFERENCES

Urban Transportation

https://www.britannica.com/technology/urban-transportation

https://uccrn.ei.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/pubs/ARC3.2-PDF-Chapter-13-
Urban-Transportation-wecompress.com_.pdf

Issues of Urban Transportation

https://www.geographynotes.com/articles/7-problems-of-urban-transport-explained-with-
diagram/185

https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter8/transportation-urban-form/

https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter8/urban-transport-challenges/