Delivering lower carbon urban transport choices: European ambition meets the reality of institutional (mis)alignment

Abstract

Reducing carbon emissions from the transport sector has become a critical imperative for public policy as our understanding of the impacts of the mobility system on the environment has developed. This paper contrasts policy development in three cities (Aberdeen, Bremen and Malmö) that collaborated as part of a European Union knowledge exchange programme designed to share innovative approaches to carbon reduction in the transport sector. We identify a number of critical aspects of governance, including the approach to policy formulation and implementation, and the status of consensus and cohesion, as key determinants of transport outcomes. We conclude that the degree of institutional alignment evident in each city's governance network is crucial in explaining their appetite for the pursuit of low carbon policies, and in turn the real potential for policy transfer to occur as envisaged by European Union collaboration frameworks.

Critical review and methodological issues in integrated life-cycle analysis on road networks

“…Transport agencies encourage modal shift towards public transport to reduce private automobile travel and increase the functionality and benefit-provision performance of road networks (Gray et al, 2016). In order to achieve this, the municipal transport agencies should focus upon perceiving transit as a competitive service that provides users with a quality service, supported by efficient road networks.…”

How policies become best practices: a case study of best practice making in an EU knowledge sharing project

“…Two authors of this study actively participate in the project in an advisory role. It has been demonstrated (see Gray, Laing, and Docherty 2017) that proximity to EU knowledge sharing ventures, through participation, provides a familiarity with project design and structures leading to unique insights. Furthermore, access to participants and project documents enables a thorough methodological approach.…”

The curious death – and life? – of British transport policy

“…Chief amongst these is the danger of "strategic drift" (see Johnson, 1988), which occurs when organisations that are highly focused on project delivery and whose wider strategy is built incrementally fail to adapt to changes in the context for their operations. One obvious example of this is the potential for the different organisations involved in delivering 'on the ground' transport projects -Highways England, Network Rail and so on -to react in a manner that is contradictory or inefficient to emerging transport trends such as vehicle automation or 'peak car' (see Goodwin and van Dender, 2013;Docherty et al, 2017). Also, just because successive governments have failed to deliver transport policy on a multimodal, integrative basis doesn't mean that this is not in fact required (Docherty and Shaw, 2011).…”

“…For example, it is one thing to be able to 25 move efficiently between major cities, but transport's contribution to economic growth, social inclusion and local environmental quality is especially obvious in cities and city regions where the density of activity and trip making is highest (Banister and Berechman, 2001; Centre for Cities, 2014). It is also in these places where the major negative externalities arising from transport (such as congestion, local air pollution and physical severance) are at their most acute, and therefore where local-and regional governance networks are keenest to develop detailed, deliberate strategies to deal with these problems (see Gray et al, 2017). …”