journeys - LTA Academy - Land Transport Authority

© 2008 LTA Academy, Land Transport Authority, Singapore 

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by 

any means without the prior written permission of the LTA Academy, Land Transport Authority, Singapore. 

The opinions and views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect 

the views of the LTA Academy or the Land Transport Authority, Singapore. 

ISSN: 1793-494X 

JOURNEYS 

Publisher 

LTA Academy 

Land Transport Authority 

1 Hampshire Road 

Singapore 219428 

Editorial Team 

Alison Tan 

George Sun 

Katherine Krummert 

Mageret Ely 

All feedback, suggestions and contribution of papers for future issues are welcome. 

Please address all correspondences to: 

JOURNEYS 

LTA Academy 

Land Transport Authority 

1 Hampshire Road 

Singapore 219428 

Fax: 65 6396 1890 

Email: JOURNEYS@lta.gov.sg 

JOURNEYS is also available online at www.LTAacademy.gov.sg

Contents 

05. Shaping Urban Journeys 

YAM Ah Mee 

15. What Colour Is Your Journey 

Heather WEBSTER 

25. Frequency and Connectivity – 

Key Drivers of Reform in Urban 

Public Transport Provision 

David HENSHER 

34. Benchmarking – 

Productivity and Service 

Tony M RIDLEY 

44. Achieving Sustainable Urban 

Transport 

Anthony D MAY 

58. Urban Transport Patterns in 

Selected Canadian and 

Korean Cities: A Comparison 

KIM Kwang Sik

Foreword 

The LTA Academy was launched in September 2006 as a Division 

within the Singapore Land Transport Authority. The Academy 

aims to be a global hub to develop capacity in urban transport 

management and development, and for government officials and 

transport professionals around the world to tap on Singapore’s 

know-how and exchange international best practices. 

JOURNEYS is a new biannual publication of the Academy. It enables us to showcase and 

share urban transport trends, policies, technologies and challenges in different cities. 

JOURNEYS will also serve as a key resource to complement and enhance the learning 

experience of participants of the Academy’s programmes. 

This inaugural issue kicks off with our Chief Executive Yam Ah Mee examining the 

key challenges that lie ahead for Singapore, and the strategies we are adopting to 

ensure that our land transport system continues to support the economy and the 

increasingly diverse needs of our people. Key among these strategies is making 

public transport a choice mode. The role of public transport in sustainable urban 

transport development is indisputable, and our featured authors discuss essential 

aspects of improving public transport, such as branding, benchmarking, key reform 

drivers, decision-making tools and drawing on the lessons learnt from other cities. 

Finally, I would like to thank the authors for their contribution and making this 

inaugural issue possible. I look forward to more collaboration as we share urban 

transport solutions and strive for a sustainable urban transport system that 

contributes to a liveable environment in all of our cities. 

Mohinder Singh 

Dean 

LTA Academy

Shaping Urban Journeys 

YAM Ah Mee 

Abstract 

Shaping Urban Journeys | YAM Ah Mee 

Land transport affects everyone. Besides supporting economic growth, land transport 

plays an important social role in providing access to amenities and opportunities for the 

community. This paper highlights the key strategic thrusts that will shape Singapore’s 

land transport policies and development over the next 10-15 years. Our goal is to build 

a people-centred land transport system—one that puts the needs of the commuters at 

the forefront, while protecting the environment to ensure that Singapore becomes an 

even more vibrant and liveable city. 

Introduction 

Like many major cities around the world, Singapore faces the challenge of meeting 

the increasing mobility needs of its people, while at the same time enhancing the 

liveability of its urban environment. 

Daily travel demand in Singapore is projected to increase by 60%, from 

the current 8.9 million journeys a day to 14.3 million by 2020. This is due to 

an increase in population and tourist arrivals, as well as increased economic 

activities generated by a buoyant economy. Being a small and densely built-up 

city-state with limited land, it is not sustainable for us to build more roads 

indefinitely to cater to the increased travel demand. At the moment, roads 

already take up 12% of our land, compared with 15% for housing. Hence, our 

transport policies have to make the best use of limited resources to meet the 

additional demand. 

Besides meeting the travel demand of the masses, our land transport system 

must cater to the diverse needs of our people. Transport is a basic need and 

we must ensure that everyone has access to it—the lower income groups, the 

JOURNEYS | Nov 2008 

05

06 


elderly, wheelchair users, families with young children and pedestrians. At the 

same time, we must take care of the environment for our future generations. 

In the light of these challenges, a high reliance on public transport is 

fundamental to a sustainable land transport system in a liveable city. As 

Mrs Anna Tibaijuka, UN-HABITAT’s Executive Director, said, “Sustainable 

urbanization cannot even begin to occur without taking into account the role 

public transport plays in securing quality of life in our cities and towns.” 

As the result of a year-long comprehensive review, the Land Transport 

Authority (LTA) released the Land Transport Masterplan: A People-Centred 

Land Transport System 1 earlier this year. The Masterplan spells out 3 strategic 

thrusts which will shape the land transport development and policies over 

the next 10 to 15 years. These are: Making Public Transport A Choice Mode; 

Managing Road Usage; and Meeting the Diverse Needs of the People. The end 

in mind is a more people-centred land transport system that supports a liveable 

and vibrant global city. 

Making Public Transport A Choice Mode 

Public transport is the most efficient people-mover. A mass rapid transit (MRT) 

train carries an average of 1,100 passengers at any one time during the peak 

period while a single deck bus can carry about 80 passengers. Contrast this 

with the average occupancy of about 1.5 persons per car. This means that it 

will take more than 50 cars to move 1 bus-load of passengers, and more than 

700 cars to move 1 train-load of passengers. Imagine the tremendous strain 

on the road network if everyone were to choose to travel by car. 

Therefore promoting public 

We must plan and build the 

transport is our key strategy to 

public transport system from our 

meet the 60% increase in travel 

commuters’ point of view... catering 

demand between now and 2020. 

to our people’s needs from the time 

In the Land Transport Masterplan, 

they leave their homes to the time 

we have set a target to increase 

they arrive at their destinations. 

the public transport modal share 

during the morning peak hours from 63% today to 70% by 2020. 

JOURNEYS | Nov 2008


To achieve this, we must plan and build the public transport system from our 

commuters’ point of view. This means catering to our people’s needs from the 

time they leave their homes to the time they arrive at their destinations. Besides 

expanding the system capacity, we will invest in the quality of the public transport 

system and services to enhance the total journey experience of commuters and 

make public transport a more attractive option. 

Enhancing the integration of the public transport network 

Today, the bus routes are planned by the public bus operators based largely 

on commercial considerations. As a result, we often receive feedback on 

circuitous routes and long waiting times. By 2009, LTA will take over the 

central planning of the bus network. We will adopt a more commuter-centric 

approach in planning the bus routes, taking into account the rail and road 

infrastructure to improve the integration of the overall transport system. 

Feeder bus services will run more direct routes and operate more frequently 

to bring commuters quickly to the major transfer hubs—the bus interchanges 

and MRT stations. 

To complement this, 

more integrated transport 

hubs, like the ones at Ang 

Mo Kio or Toa Payoh (Figure 

1), where bus interchanges 

are co-located with MRT 

stations and commercial 

development, will be created. 

These integrated hubs 

provide greater convenience 

Figure 1: Ang Mo Kio Hub 

for commuters making transfers between the bus and train. Commuters 

can also shop or pick up a drink while waiting for their buses or trains, all 

in air-conditioned comfort. The aim is to transform these transport nodes 

into fun and exciting places, create more buzz and provide greater comfort 

and convenience for the commuters. 

JOURNEYS | Nov 2008 07

08 


Expanding the rail network 

Given its high carrying capacity, speed and reliability, a comprehensive rail 

network is crucial to our efforts to make public transport a mode of choice 

for our commuters. 

Currently, we have about 138km of rail network. By 2020, we will have 

completed three projects now under construction—the Boon Lay Extension, 

the Circle Line and Downtown Line. We will also embark on another 4 new 

rail projects—the Thomson Line, Eastern Region Line, the Tuas Extension and 

the North South Line Extension (Figure 2). This will double the rail network 

to 278km by 2020, achieving a rail density of 51km per million persons. This 

exceeds today’s rail density in Hong Kong and Tokyo and is comparable to 

that in New York and London. What does this mean for our people? There 

will be greater connectivity by train and travel times will be reduced. Within 

the central area, they will be able to access an MRT station within a short 5minute 

walk on average. 

Managing Road Usage 

Figure 2: Existing and future rail lines 

Our second key strategy is to manage the demand for road usage so that traffic 

on our roads remains smooth flowing. Congestion results in economic loss as 

JOURNEYS | Nov 2008


well as externalities such as noise and air pollution. Our quality of life will be 

affected if daily commute turns into long, arduous journeys with constant gridlock 

amidst noise and air pollution. 

Congestion needs to be managed in a holistic manner. While improving public 

transport is key to managing demand on our roads, this alone is not sufficient. 

Over the next 15 years, LTA will also continue to build new roads to serve new 

developments. We have recently opened the new Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway 

to traffic. At 12km with 9km 

underground, it is the longest 

underground expressway in 

Southeast Asia. It provides an 

alternative route for residents 

in the northeast to reach the 

city centre. By 2013, we will 

also complete the 5km Marina 

Coastal Expressway and by 

2020, the 21km North South 

Expressway (Figure 3). 

However building new roads 

alone will not keep our roads smooth 

flowing. Additional lanes and new 

roads inevitably attract more traffic 

which eventually leads to congestion. 

Figure 3: Expressway network 

Additional lanes and new 

roads inevitably attract more 

traffic which eventually leads 

to congestion. 

Hence, we rely on policy tools such as the Vehicle Quota System to control 

the growth in vehicle population, and the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) 

system to manage demand on congested roads. 

ERP is by far the most effective and direct means of managing congestion. 

It causes motorists to be more aware of the cost of congestion to others 

as a result of their driving. The aim is to influence the motorist’s decision, 

so that he may consider driving during off-peak hours or use alternative 

modes of transport. As part of the year-long land transport review, LTA 

has enhanced the ERP system to make it more effective and responsive 

JOURNEYS | Nov 2008 09


to changing traffic conditions. New gantries have also been introduced to 

manage the rising congestion in the city area. 

Meeting the Diverse Needs of the People 

Our third key strategy is to make sure that as our society evolves, our policies 

continue to keep in tune with the changing and diverse needs of our people. 

Improving accessibility for all 

Singapore’s population is ageing. We will improve the accessibility of our 

transport system to enable the elderly to remain connected to the community. 

At the same time, less mobile groups such as wheelchair users, the visually 

impaired as well as the lower income groups, should have access to our land 

transport system. This is part of our aim of building a more inclusive society 

in Singapore. 

Currently, wheelchair-accessible buses and barrier-free facilities in MRT 

stations are already available, but more will be done to improve accessibility. By 

2010, pedestrian walkways, access to MRT stations, taxi and bus shelters, and 

public roads across the island will be barrier-free. By 2020, the public bus fleet 

will be fully wheelchair-accessible. Additional lifts will also be installed at MRT 

stations so that commuters need not make long detours to look for an entrance 

with lift (Figure 4). 

As we enhance the quality of our public transport services, we also need to 

make sure that public transport remain affordable to the masses, especially the 

Figure 4: Accessibility for all 

10 JOURNEYS | Nov 2008


lower income groups. The Government’s policy is to regulate fares to ensure that 

public transport remains affordable to the majority. Instead of keeping fares at 

artificially low levels, they are allowed to go up in small regular steps to keep pace 

with inflation. However, for the lower-income groups who need more help with 

their transport costs, more targeted help is available through various government 

assistance schemes or community schemes such as the public transport vouchers 

that have been given out yearly. 

Protecting the environment 

Land transport plays a significant role in contributing to a high quality and 

sustainable living environment, given its wide-ranging impact on air quality, 

energy consumption, noise pollution and our urban landscape. Hence we must 

consciously design our practices and policies to support environmental objectives. 

In addition, LTA works closely with other agencies to encourage motorists to 

choose cleaner and more energy-efficient vehicles, such as hybrid cars. 

We recognize that cycling is an environmentally friendly transport mode 

that can link commuters to our public transport network. With the growing 

popularity of cycling in Singapore, we will be building more and better bicycle 

parking facilities at MRT stations and bus interchanges. A trial will also be 

conducted to allow foldable bicycles onboard trains and buses. 

A People-Centred System 

Transport affects people in different 

ways. To have a people-centred land 

transport system, public feedback 

must play an important role as we 

formulate and fine-tune our policies. 


To have a people-centred land 

transport system, public feedback 

must play an important role as 

we formulate and fine-tune our 

policies. 

LTA regularly engages the public to understand their needs and expectations. 

For example, the year-long land transport review has benefited from an extensive 

public consultation exercise conducted through various channels—focus group 

discussions, online feedback portal and an e-game called the Great Transport 

11


Challenge 2020. In all, more than 4500 people contributed their time, energy and 

ideas to this review. 

Besides involving our people in shaping our transport policies, their support 

is equally important during the implementation stage. This is especially so given 

the major infrastructure works that LTA will be undertaking in the next 10 to 15 

years and the resulting inconvenience to residents and communities affected by 

our works. To this end, we have been actively engaging all stakeholders through 

community events, publications, exhibitions, site visits and road shows to keep 

them updated of the progress of our projects and seek their feedback. 

Our Art in Transit programme provides another channel for LTA to engage 

the community in producing customised artworks to showcase the unique 

culture and history associated with each MRT station. This integration of artwork 

and culture with the station design helps to foster greater ownership among 

the community and add colour and vibrancy to their daily commute. Examples 

include the football imagery on the wall of Stadium Station of the Circle Line 

and the flowing Chinese calligraphy built into the platform floor in Chinatown 

Station of the North East Line (Figure 5). The Mural Design Competition for 

the new Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway, where 

winning mural designs will be installed on KPE 

structures, is yet another way to involve the 

community and build greater ownership and 

support for our initiatives. 

A Land Transport Community Partnership 

Division has been established within LTA where 

dedicated teams are assigned to each constituency 

to handle the day-to-day road and traffic 

management issues more 

effectively, and foster a 

closer relationship with the 

community. A Community 

Outreach Programme was 

12 JOURNEYS | Nov 2008 

Figure 5: Art in Transit in MRT stations


also launched to periodically share and discuss land transport policies and plans 

with grassroots leaders. 

In January this year, LTA opened the Land Transport Gallery which showcases 

the development of the Singapore land transport system since 1945. The Gallery 

strives to engage our different stakeholders, promote greater awareness of the 

intricacies and challenges of land transport policies and encourage an open 

exchange of ideas to improve the land transport system. 

Through the various engagement efforts, we hope that there will be greater 

ownership of the land transport system. 

Conclusion 

The Land Transport Masterplan has laid out ambitious goals and the years ahead 

will be challenging. Within less than a year from the launch of the Masterplan, 

LTA has completed several initiatives to improve public transport services. These 

include working with the rail operators to increase the frequency of rail services 

to reduce passenger loading and provide commuters with a more comfortable 

ride; extension of more Full Day Bus Lanes in the city to give buses greater 

priority on the roads; expansion of the Premium Bus Service scheme—which 

provides better comfort and a more direct journey at higher fares—from about 

42 services last year to more than 70 services noww; and introduction of a 

common call booking telephone service for taxi services which makes it more 

convenient for the public to call for a taxi. 

Work on the longer term measures such as taking on the role of central 

bus planning and expansion of the rail network is also progressing smoothly. 

For example, LTA has recently completed the advanced engineering studies 

and finalised the alignment of Downtown Line Stage 2, bringing residents in the 

north-western area of Singapore one step closer to long-awaited access to the 

rail network. 

By 2020, Singaporeans will have a more advanced public transport system that 

enables them to get to their destination efficiently and safely. Our end in mind is 

a land transport system that places the needs of our people firmly in the centre, 

and makes it possible for them to enjoy the activities in our vibrant global city. 


13


Notes 

1. The full report may be viewed online at http://app.lta.gov.sg/ltmp/index.asp 

References 

Vuchic, V. R. 1999. Transportation in Livable Cities. Center for Urban Policy Research, New Jersey. 

Yam Ah Mee is Chief Executive of the Land Transport Authority 

(LTA), Singapore. He led the LTA in the Land Transport Review which 

unveiled major initiatives to enhance the land transport system in 

Singapore over the next 10 to 15 years. Under his leadership, LTA 

has embarked on many initiatives to improve public transport, such 

as the expansion of the rail network, the introduction of wheelchair- 

accessible buses, barrier-free accessibility around train stations and 

bus interchanges, and the implementation of real-time bus arrival information. Mr Yam 

was previously Deputy Secretary (Sea & Air) in the Ministry of Transport. He is also 

the Director of EZ–Link Pte Ltd and Chairman of MSI Global Pte Ltd, both subsidiary 

companies of LTA. 


What Colour Is Your Journey? | Heather WEBSTER 

What Colour Is Your Journey? 

Heather WEBSTER 

Abstract 

This paper looks at the use of colour and branding to position and promote public 

transport in Adelaide, South Australia, an extremely competitive transport environment. 

Branding is used to ensure that the image of public transport which is presented to 

the customer is standard, of high quality and provides the comfort and reassurance of 

a known and trusted brand. The same style and themes are repeated in timetables, 

kerbside information, websites and advertising to reinforce the brand and build familiarity. 

Branding can help achieve the public recognition necessary to meet the worthy aims of 

public transport, and attract the resources and support of a community. 

Introduction 

All around the world, governments invest in public transport in recognition 

of the broad benefits it brings to their citizens. These benefits are often 

grouped as economic, environmental, social, safety and health benefits. More 

importantly, many societies are recognising that well-functioning and accessible 

public transport underpins a healthy, equitable and sustainable future for the 

cities we would like to live in. 

As a community develops and prospers, the demand for travel increases. The 

relationships between home, work, family recreation, education and even experiential 

travel become more frequent and more complex. Personal travel therefore becomes 

an important facilitator, not only of personal well being, but the ability of all people to 

contribute to and enjoy the broader wealth of the community. 

If we accept, and the evidence is overwhelming, that collective transport 

is a more economic and sustainable solution than private travel, the challenge 

narrows to positioning public transport to deliver these benefits. 


15


Like all important problems, the response needs to be well understood, 

well thought through and comprehensively delivered. Any effective public 

transport system needs to be designed with the knowledge of the shape and 

functionality of its city, the needs, aspirations and predilections of its people 

and a vision for the future. However, good transport design is not sufficient. 

If we are to offer our citizens a public 

transport system that is genuinely a 

quality part of their lives, I believe we 

need to go beyond the conventional 

concept of customer service to make 

public transport the travel mode of 

choice, not just necessity. 

This paper looks at one aspect of this approach, namely branding and the 

use of colour as basic tools to begin to effectively position and promote public 

transport in Adelaide. 

Get the Product Right First 

Firstly, I offer a word of warning. In marketing terminology, public transport 

is a low value, repeat purchase product. We want our customers to make the 

choice to purchase our product most, if not all, of the occasions they travel. 

This places a strong obligation on the service designers and deliverers to 

provide a reliable and predictable product to support repeat purchases. You 

might be able to sell a faulty product once, but public transport providers 

need to be able to sell this product time after time after time. This means we 

not only have a tough job to strive for excellence in service delivery, but we 

need to recognise and reward people for routine work of utter predictability. 

The ideal may be to deliver exactly the same service, at the same time, every day, 

all year. 

Marketing cannot compensate for poor 

service, poor design or poor delivery. But it 

can build awareness, loyalty, appreciation and 


...we need to go beyond 

the conventional concept of 

customer service to make 

public transport the travel mode 

of choice, not just necessity. 

Marketing cannot compensate 

for poor service, poor design or 

poor delivery.


increase business on a strong foundation of good service design and good customerfocussed 

delivery. 

So, task one—get the product right first. 

Why Branding? 

Before a customer can purchase anything they need to be sufficiently aware 

of the product or service to make a choice, and then be motivated to make 

a decision. When we began the marketing program in Adelaide, we learned 

that many people were generally aware there were public transport services 

operating. However they did not have sufficient information to make a decision 

to use it, or sufficient incentive to be goaded to make a change from their private 

car. While petrol prices and congestion are creating the right environment for 

change, lack of information is still one of the important challenges of many 

public transport systems. Questions like where do services operate, when, 

how do you get and use tickets—all are barriers between potential users and 

the system. 

The purpose of branding is 

to unite and represent all the 

information we offer the customer 

in a familiar and predictable way to 


The brand provides familiarity, 

reassurance and hence comfort to 

the traveller... 

induce them to use and re-use the system. The brand provides familiarity, 

reassurance and hence comfort to the traveller, leading to a situation in which 

they are likely to choose or use the product more. 

Good brands work. We are surrounded by advertising and promotion of 

brands which many commercial companies have invested millions of dollars 

to develop, protect and promote. That sort of investment is not made and 

maintained without detailed research and demonstrable commercial results. 

Branding is a concept with which we are all familiar. But what does a brand 

mean in public transport? 

17


Building a Brand Identity 

The essence of branding is recognition supported by messages—some direct, 

others more subtle. Brands gain power from repeated presentation and frequent 

use. In Adelaide, we decided the essence of our brand would be colour, logo 

and placement which would be uniformly applied across all the components 

of the system. We had built the reliability of the service sufficiently to have a 

product worth selling. We had developed a suite of customer information to 

assist people to understand the product. Next we needed to build a brand to 

increase awareness and product familiarity in order to increase patronage. 

So, task two—select your brand identity. 

Colour 

Colours are very emotive. There is a large body of work on the use of colour 

and the emotional responses which are generated by colour. We chose three 

colours which would be used together in the same way. At the time of this 

choice, we were contracting the provision of services to private sector 

companies. One of the major aims of the decision to brand and the choice of 

colours was to reassure people that the government was still in control of the 

system and that it was a single integrated system even though services might 

be delivered by different providers. This was achieved by two strategies. The 

first was the choice of colours. The second was to have a strong brand based 

on a single logo and uniform application across the system. 

The colours chosen are those used by the state government as part of their 

branding—yellow, red and blue. These are also the colours of our first football 

club to join the national league. So the choice of colour already carries two 

messages—state ownership and state pride in one of our national passions. 

Another advantage of the colours is strength—these are bold, obvious primary 

colours. Yellow is the safest colour on the road. It is most easily seen at dawn 

and dusk, or during rain. It is the colour which can be seen at the longest 

distance by people with vision impairments. So there are many positives. 


Creating a Standard Look and Feel 

Branding takes the colour choice 

and combines it with logo, text and 

placement to contribute to a standard 

look and feel across all elements of the 

system. The task is to use the colours 

and styles in prescribed ways across the 

entire public transport system. 

This covers vehicle livery (Figure 1), 

infrastructure, customer information 

and all advertising and promotion 



Figure 1: Livery for Adelaide Metro vehicles 

showing uniform branding 

materials. The development and effective use of a brand relies on its 

controlled and repeated use in predictable ways. Not only does this give 

the customer a regular and standard view, it also prevents misuse and brand 

diffusion or confusion. 

The implementation of standard branding is 

best achieved by tight control and prescription. 

A style guide showing examples, exact colours, 

positioning of colour, information and the use of 

text is essential (Figure 2). The logo needed to 

be able to be reproduced effectively in black and 

white in every size. Mandate its use to ensure 

absolute uniformity. This is important, not as an 

expression of control, but to ensure that the face 

Figure 2: Style Guide 

which is presented to the customer is standard, 

of high quality and provides the comfort and reassurance that familiarity of a 

known and trusted brand brings. 

The elements which contribute to the totality of the communication 

environment in which a brand is used include not only the livery of vehicles 

but the placement of information signs, warnings (for example, the presence of 

video surveillance or road rule guidance on the back of buses) and even 

advertising from third parties. 

19


Branding needs to be repeated and reinforced in all the information which 

is provided to customers. Timetables, kerbside information, websites, and 

advertising which all reflect the same style and themes build familiarity and 

lessen the opportunities for confusion. 

Uniform branding can reinforce the 

integration across a public transport system. 

Whether bus, tram or train, the same 

ticketing, the same rules, the same sources 

of information are seen to apply. This lessens 

the uncertainty for customers. 

Branding in Customer Information 

Branding in customer information needs to cover many types of information 

and communication forms. There are vast amounts of information which needs 

to be successfully conveyed in small spaces with the least opportunity for 

confusion. The easiest illustration of this concept is the use of universal signs 

and symbols. The adoption and use of these has shown benefits which are 

being extended to road use in many countries. 

While we are making progress, I believe there are still many opportunities for 

improved “embedded” information in public transport systems. By embedded, 

I mean information which is incorporated in the structure of the system itself 

which provides information, often without words. The most obvious examples 

of this concept are location signs. So often, a place name is displayed on a 

board on posts, forming an obstacle, a target for graffiti or simply a place for 

birds to perch with the consequent messiness which needs to be cleaned. 

With forethought and imagination, place names can be incorporated into 

walls, pavements, bus shelters or rooves. This is not only more efficient and 

less costly to maintain, it also provides an opportunity for local communities 

to interact with creative people to produce works of not just information use 

but also beauty. This can be used to develop not only a canvas for art and 

creativity, but a sense of local ownership and pride. It can also be a wonderful 

vehicle for engaging young people to develop an affinity and respect for public 


Uniform branding can 

reinforce the integration 

across a public transport 

system.


transport. Figure 3 shows some artwork created for Elizabeth Railway Station 

by young artists through Carclew Youth Arts programme. 

Figure 3: Mural examples at Elizabeth 

Railway Station 

Red Goes Faster 

Branding and colour coding have been used very successfully in many public 

transport systems. Notwithstanding that a proportion of our customers 

(particularly men) are colour–blind, colour coding of routes is often used 

successfully on public transport. This should not be confused with the use of 

colour in branding. 

We all know that red means fast. In Adelaide we developed a “Go Zone” 

system in which we branded service routes which offered high frequency 

services with red poles and red information units. Apart from an opportunity 

to market a new concept which offered the attribute most valued by customers, 

that is frequency, the “red routes” offered a new way of communication with 

customers. The ultimate development of this concept is the elimination of the 

need for timetables. While many large public transport systems in the world 


21


(e.g. the metros in Paris, London) do not need timetables, smaller systems 

do. This colour coding allows smaller systems to differentiate the parts 

of their systems which offer high frequency. Hence they have no need 

for a timetable, unlike other parts of the system for which a timetable is 

necessary for efficient travel. 

There is a dichotomy in the need and benefit of providing information 

about public transport services between areas of high frequency and 

low frequency. Routes offering high frequency have the lowest need for 

information because high frequency involves low risk of not getting a 

service. Customers with access only to low frequency services have the 

greatest need for information on service timetable. However, in public 

transport, we are attracted to providing services (including facilities and 

information) to those areas which will benefit the greatest number of people. 

Therefore the tendency is to provide the most information to the parts of 

the system which carry the most people, although this group may have the 

lowest need for information. Colour coding can offer a highly cost-effective 

way of communicating frequency. This allows us to concentrate information 

services to those most in need, which is in areas of low service supply. 

Is Your Brand Working? 

Brands need time and repetition to achieve penetration (public recognition) 

in the market. Most public transport systems have many opportunities for 

exposing a brand, for example, vehicles, infrastructure, web presence, tickets, 

timetables. Indeed every element of the system should be thought of as an 

opportunity for achieving recognition and reinforcement of the brand. Brand 

recognition alone can have value, especially in multiple element systems 

(which most public transport systems are) for which the main purpose of the 

brand is the message of unification. For example, all these trains and buses 

belong to the same network and can be used together. Brand recognition is 

easily measured through focus groups. It must also be protected, for it also 

represents a risk if de-valued. Product familiarity (brand recognition) is a key 

tool in customer reassurance. 



The value of a strong brand can go well beyond recognition to convey 

many emotional and practical messages which can be used to influence 

behaviour and build customer loyalty. Again, the value of the brand needs to 

be supported by the quality of the product. The basic meanings that should 

be associated with public transport systems include safety, reliability and 

convenience, but this is not sufficient. The brand can be used to carry new 

products, to increase patronage, to encourage loyalty, to be known and dare 

I say loved. We need to build the value of the brand and the diversity of 

the offerings to be highly valued in our communities. I would argue it is not 

sufficient for public transport to be functional or even efficient. If public 

transport is to be truly valued and supported to meet the worthy aims of 

environmental sustainability, healthy and wealthy communities living in socially 

inclusive civilized cities, we need to attract the resources and support of our 

communities. To do this, we must be recognised and valued, and the first step 

in this process is branding. 

Conclusion 

As the complexity of our world increases, brands offer familiarity. The 

dominance of branded products and franchising demonstrates the power of 

these concepts in our modern world. Branding provides the basic tool for 

building suites of marketing and promotional products to position public 

transport beyond basic functionality to offer a combination of community 

and personal service and satisfaction. The latter is an element which car 

manufacturers exploit so well in their advertisements. Unless we rise to this 

challenge, we face unsustainable cities with sharpening divisions between 

transport rich and transport poor. This is a challenge worthy of the best 

minds and the hardest work. 


23


Acknowledgement 

I wish to acknowledge the work of Paul Littlejohns, Manager of Customer Information and Business 

Development, Public Transport Division, DTEI, Adelaide in developing the marketing program for 

Adelaide Metro and for his tireless advocacy for a customer focus in Adelaide’s public transport 

which has been very important in building patronage. 

Heather Webster is the Chair of the International Association of 

Public Transport Australia/New Zealand (UITP ANZ) and Executive 

Director of South Australia’s Public Transport Division. She has a 

passion for the role of public transport in building civilised cities 

for the 21st century. She has had a signifi cant role in developing 

partnerships with the private sector for service delivery and systems 

with the focus on the passengers in Adelaide. Improving the 

information available to customers and reducing the barriers that deter users have been 

prime strategies in her approach that has delivered consistent growth in patronage against 

a negative trend. Ms Heather has degrees in science and librarianship and an MBA. 


Frequency and Connectivity 

Key Drivers of Reform in Urban 

Public Transport Provision 

David HENSHER 

Abstract 

Frequency and Connectivity | David HENSHER 

The selection of appropriate public transport investments that will maximize the 

likelihood of delivering the levels of service required to provide a serious alternative to 

the automobile is high on the agendas of many metropolitan governments. Mindful of 

budget constraints, it is crucial to ensure that such investments offer the greatest value 

for money. This paper promotes the view that integrated multi-modal systems that 

provide frequency and connectivity in a network-based framework offer the best way 

forward. A mix of public transport investments with buses as feeder services and bus 

rapid transit (BRT) as trunk services can offer a greater coverage and frequency than 

traditional forms of rail, even at capacity levels often claimed the domain of rail. 

Introduction 

Cities continue to grow for a whole host of reasons, resulting in levels of 

traffic congestion that have rarely been observed in the past. The “predict 

and provide” approach, so common with urban transport planning, typically 

recommends more road building. This, however, does not contribute in the 

long term to delivering sustainable city performance that is close to economic 

efficiency and distributive justice objectives. There are many other ways of 

supporting these objectives, one of which is improved public transport. This 

paper takes a strategic look at what are sensible ways to embody improved 

public transport into the complex workings of a city. 


25


Public transport investment is being touted as a key springboard for 

a sustainable future, especially in large metropolitan areas with growing 

populations. Public transport, however, is very much multi-modal and should not 

be seen as a single mode solution as is so often the case with many ideologues. 

Hence, any commitment to improve public transport has a growing number of 

options to pursue. Enhancement in rail systems typically loom dominant in many 

strategic statements on urban reform (Sislak 2000; Edwards and Mackett 1996), 

ranging from heavy rail to metro rail and light rail. However there is a growing 

interest worldwide in making better use of the bus as a primary means of public 

transport, and not limited as a service that feeds a rail network (Hensher 1999, 

2007; Canadian Urban Transit Association 2004; Callaghan and Vincent 2007). 

In establishing a role for public 

transport, it should be enshrined in 

the motto of delivering “frequency, 

connectivity and visibility” that is 

value for money in terms of net 

social benefit per dollar outlaid. 

Connectivity refers to the provision of door-to-door services with minimum 

delay and almost seamless interchanges. Visibility is predominantly knowing 

where the mode is coming from and going to, and when. 

There are many ways in which bus transport can be developed as part of an 

integrated network-based public transport system (Hensher 2007a). The BRT 

systems in South America such as that in Curitiba, Brazil and TransMilenio in 

Bogota, Colombia (Menckhoff 2005) are good examples. BRT is “...a high quality 

bus-based transit system that delivers fast, comfortable, and cost-effective urban 

mobility through the provision of segregated right-of-way infrastructure, rapid 

and frequent operations, and excellent marketing and customer service. BRT 

essentially emulates the performance and amenity characteristics of a modern 

rail-based transit system but at a fraction of the cost. A BRT system will 

typically cost 4 to 20 times less than a light rail transit (LRT) system and 10 

to100 times less than a metro system.” (Wright and Hook 2007) 


In establishing a role for public 

transport, it should be enshrined in 

the motto of delivering “frequency, 

connectivity and visibility” that is 

value for money...

The Appeal of Bus Rapid Transit Systems 

Achieving connectivity and value for money 



Recent research by Callaghan and Vincent (2007) shows the appeal of BRT 

when comparing the Orange Line BRT in Los Angeles with the Gold Line LRT 

in Pasadena, California, both of which connect to the Red Line subway and 

have similar service patterns and length. The BRT is performing considerably 

better than the LRT. The latter costs considerably more and carries fewer 

riders. Capital costs per average weekday boarding for the BRT is US$16,722 

in contrast to US$45,762 for the LRT; cost per revenue service hour for BRT 

and LRT are respectively US$243.18 and US$552.54; and cost per passenger 

mile are respectively US$0.54 and US$1.08. These are impressive evidence 

that a BRT system offers better value for money than an LRT system. Metro 

and heavy rail would be even more unattractive within the service capacity 

range studied. 

Cain et al. (2007) review the lessons that can be learnt from the most successful 

BRT system—the TransMilenio—in Bogota, Columbia, and its applicability to the 

United States. The most important findings relate to connectivity and network 

integrity, reinforcing the view that it is all about networks and not corridors 

per se. They suggest that BRT is capable of playing a role in the achievement of a 

wide set of objectives such as sustainable accessibility and urban renewal when 

implemented as part of a holistic package of integrated strategies. Importantly, 

it is the commitment to a network of BRT routes (and not a corridor view of 

planning per se) which provides the opportunity to enhance the accessibility 

and urban renewal benefits from corridor level to metropolitan-wide level. 

The relatively low capital costs have made a network of BRT routes possible 

within a relatively short time frame (often within 5 years), with examples such 

as Brisbane, Philadelphia and Bogota (Hensher and Golob 2008). 

BRT, as a high capacity public transport solution for major corridors, forms 

the centrepiece for a fully integrated network of bus-based services. The 

connectivity deep into the network’s outer fringes is established through a 

hierarchy of feeder and trunk routes, with almost seamless transfer points. While 

27


it is true that this can allow for light rail 

and heavy rail, the hourly capacity needs 

in many jurisdictions are such that rail is 

unnecessary given it higher capital costs 

(and lower value for money) and greater 

lifecycle maintenance and operating 

costs. The fully integrated and connected 

bus hierarchy can be modified for little 

cost as markets change, making it very 

adaptable to the preservation of connectivity relevant to patronage throughout 

the network. 

Increasing capacity through high frequency 

Whether BRT is part of a transition strategy to other forms of public transport 

or an end in itself should be determined by how the market responds. It is 

not uncommon to see BRT promoted as a transition to light rail, metro and 

even heavy rail (e.g. in Brisbane and Pittsburgh). This is partly to get something 

started within constrained budgets, but to also appease anti-bus groups who 

see public transport as singularly rail. What is encouraging is that the success of 

many of the BRT systems has resulted in its expansion without the need to go 

to a rail solution. Carrying capacities of BRT are increasing all the time, moving 

the case solely for rail off many agendas (Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Changing capacity of the modes 


The fully integrated and 

connected bus hierarchy can 

be modified for little cost as 

markets change, making it very 

adaptable to the preservation 

of connectivity relevant to 

patronage throughout the 

network.

Infrastructure Costs of BRT Systems 



Infrastructure cost is one of the key indicators considered by governments 

and the media when debating public transport investment options. The 

fi gure below shows that the infrastructure costs for BRT systems can vary 

from a high of US$53.2m per kilometre in Boston to a low of US$0.35m 

per kilometre in Taipei. The signifi cant range indicates the local nature 

of costing. In addition, the range depends upon the individual features 

sought within each system, e.g. quality of stations, separation from traffi c. 

While such univariate comparisons are somewhat limiting and must be 

interpreted in the context of input cost differences across nations, what is 

surprising is that the variation does not systematically vary by country or 

continent, contrary to initial expectation that input costs might be greater 

in developed economies. For example, the 7th most expensive BRT is in 

Sao Paulo with the 12th in Bogota, both in Latin America. Although the least 

costly systems are typically in Asia and Latin America, Taipei is a relatively 

prosperous city with GDP per capita of US$29,500, which compares 

favourably with Sydney (US$33,000) and Tokyo (US$35,000). Bogota, in 

comparison, has a GDP per capita of US$9,000. 

Total infrastructure costs per kilometre for BRT systems (2006 US$m) 

29


The so-called natural evolution from a bus in mixed traffi c to heavy rail in 

terms of passenger capacity per hour (sitting and standing) is no longer strictly 

valid. BRT systems such as the TransMilenio have shown that a BRT system can, 

if appropriately confi gured, carry more passengers per hour than many rail 

systems. The main trunk corridor in Bogota has maximum peak ridership of 

35,000 passengers per hour per direction with recent claims of up to 45,000 

passengers with maximum peak headways of 3 minutes (5 minute off-peak 

headways), average station dwell time of 25 seconds, with articulated buses 

having a carrying capacity of 160 passengers and off-vehicle smartcard fare 

payment. Curitiba, the forerunner to Bogota, has a maximum peak ridership of 

20,000 passengers per hour per direction. This compares to the busiest rail line 

in Sydney, for example, of 14,000 passengers per hour per direction. In general 

Hidalgo (2005) states “There is a range, between 20,000 and 40,000 passengers 

per hour per direction, in which Metros and HBRT 1 are able to provide similar 

capacity. Nevertheless, there are large differences in initial costs: US$5-20 million 

per kilometre for HBRT, US$30-160 million per kilometre for Metros”. 

Figure 2 shows the peak ridership for 26 systems for which data is available. 

The 4 South American systems in Bogota, Sao Paulo, Porto Alegre and Curitiba 

have peak ridership of 20,000 or more passengers per hour per direction. This 

declines to 12,000 for Seoul, with the majority of systems in the range of 2,000 

to 8,000 passengers per hour per direction. 

Figure 2: Peak ridership of BRT systems (2006) 


The Preferred BRT Scenario 



There is a significant amount of variation in the specifications of the different 

BRT systems. Clearly a preferred scenario would support high commercial 

speeds, no operating subsidies (unless they are optimal in an economic welfare 

sense), low floor buses with at-level boarding, dedicated corridors with no 

interference from other modes, smartcard off-vehicle fare payment, seamless 

modal interchange, and minimum access and egress time. 

There is no one system that comes close to fulfilling all these conditions. 

The Australian and US systems deliver the highest commercial speeds, the 

Latin American systems are least dependent on operating subsidies, the 

Latin American and European systems dominate the provision of at-level 

boarding and alighting, the Latin American systems have been most effective 

in eliminating the need for signal priority or grade separation at intersections, 

and the Latin American, Asian, and French systems have committed to preboard 

fare collection and fare verification. Modal integration at stations is 

strongest in Australia, Europe, and USA. Finally, the majority of BRT systems 

have stations spaced 500 metres apart on average, although this increases to 

over 1.5 kilometres for Australian and US systems, including one in China and 

in Holland. 

Wright and Hook (2007) have compiled details of many BRT systems to 

document the inherent advantages and disadvantages in terms of cost and 

performance. With a focus on delivering a cost efficient and service effective 

transport system, there are opportunities today to evaluate mixtures of bus 

and rail systems that can service the full spectrum of capacity requirements 

and patronage demands (Cornwell and Cracknell 1990; Hidalgo 2005; Transit 

Cooperative Research Program 2007). 

Conclusion 

This paper reinforces the need to have a broad view on candidate public 

transport systems, designed to deliver network-based frequency and 

connectivity, while complying with value for money objectives. It is essential 

31


to stop thinking in terms of modes alone, but to think in terms of outcomes, 

and only then consider the role of specific modes which are a means to an 

end and not an end per se. The emotional debate on bus vs. rail has become 

somewhat counter-productive. It is time to focus on the real objective of 

providing sustainable transport systems that are the most affordable for the 

job at hand. 

Notes 

1. Hidalgo (2005) refers to high level BRT as HBRT, operating on its own right-of-way with high 

quality interchanges, integrated smartcard fare payment and efficient throughput of passengers 

alighting and boarding at bus stations. 

References 

Cain, A., Darido, G., Baltes, M., Rodriguez, P. and Barrios, J. 2007. Applicability of TransMilenio 

bus rapid transit system of Bogota, Columbia, to the United States. Transportation Research Record 

2034, 45-54. 

Canadian Urban Transit Association. 2004. Bus rapid transit: A Canadian perspective. Issues Paper 

#10, CUTA, Toronto. 

Callaghan, L. and Vincent, W. 2007. Preliminary evaluation of Metro Orange Line bus rapid transit 

project. Transportation Research Record 2034, 37-44. 

Cornwell, P. and Cracknell, J. 1990. The case for busway transit, PTRC 18th Summer Annual 

Meeting, 1990. (This paper is a summary of TRL Research Report 329 and Overseas Road Note 12 

of the Transport Research Laboratory, Berkshire, UK). 

Edwards, M. and Mackett, R. L. 1996. Developing new urban public transport systems: An irrational 

decision making process. Transport Policy 3, 225-239. 

Hensher, D.A. 1999. Bus-based transit way or light rail? Continuing the saga on choice versus blind 

commitment. Roads and Transport Research 8(3), September 3-21. 

Hensher, D.A. 2007. Sustainable public transport systems: Moving towards a value for money and 

network-based approach and away from blind commitment. Transport Policy 14 (1), 98-102. 

Hensher, D.A. 2007a. Bus Transport: Economics, Policy and Planning. Research in Transportation 

Economics, Volume 18. Elsevier, Oxford. 

Hensher, D.A. and Golob, T.F. 2008. Bus rapid transit systems – A comparative assessment. 

Transportation 35 (4), 501-518. 

Hidalgo, D. 2005. Comparing transit alternatives after recent developments in BRT in Latin America. 

Paper presented at the January 2005 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington 

DC. 



Menckhoff, G. 2005. Latin American experience with bus rapid transit. Paper presented at the Annual 

Meeting, Institution of Transportation Engineers, Melbourne, Australia. 

Sislak, K.G. 2000. Bus rapid transport as a substitute for light rail: A tail of two cities. Paper presented 

at 8th Joint Conference on Light Rail Transit, Transportation Research Board and American Public 

Transportation Association. http://www.apta.com/research/info/briefi ngs/documents/sislak.pdf 

Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). 2007. Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide. TCRP 

Report 118. Transportation Research Board, Washington DC. 

Wright, L. and Hook, W. 2007. Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide, 3rd edition. Institute for 

Transportation and Development Policy, New York. 

David Hensher is a Professor of Management, and Founding Director 

of the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies at the University of 

Sydney, Australia. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences 

in Australia, recipient of the 2006 Engineers Australia Transport 

Medal for lifelong contribution to transportation, past President of the 

International Association of Travel Behaviour Research and a Vice-Chair 

of the International Scientifi c Committee of the World Conference of 

Transport Research. Professor Hensher is the Executive Chair and Co-Founder of The 

International Conference in Competition and Ownership of Land Passenger Transport (the 

Thredbo Series), now in its 18th year. He is also on the editorial boards of 10 of the leading 

transport journals and Area Editor of Transport Reviews. 


33

Benchmarking | Tony M RIDLEY 

Benchmarking 

Productivity and Service 

Tony M RIDLEY 

Abstract 

This paper discusses productivity and service in metros. It looks at what is benchmarking, 

the processes involved and the key pre-requisites for successful benchmarking. Finally it 

emphasizes the importance of the concepts of service, efficiency and effectiveness and 

how they contribute towards a metro’s performance. 

My First Productivity Comparisons 

Some 25 years ago, I was the Chairman of the Finance and Commerce Sub- 

Committee of the Metropolitan Railways Committee of the International Union 

of Public Transport (UITP). I wrote a paper, with Hans Meyer of Hamburg, on 

productivity comparisons between metropolitan railways (Ridley and Meyer 

1983). We collected data over a five-year period (1977-81) from 26 metros in 

order to carry out our analyses. The most detailed analysis was carried out 

on the data from Hamburg and London. Many comparisons were made in 

the paper that gave insights into the respective performance of the metros in 

Hamburg and London (see box story on ‘‘Productivity Comparison between 

London and Hamburg”). 

Clearly, different systems operate in quite different environments, which 

may make simple comparisons invalid. Such examples include the level of 

subsidy provided to the operator; the passenger markets in which they operate; 

the nature of the labour market; and the extent of capital infrastructure 

already in place. However the actual numbers, and the rankings in any ‘‘league 

tables” developed, are not the object of the exercise. The essential question 

is how we learn from the numbers, the questions that are stimulated by them 



Productivity Comparison between London and Hamburg 

(Ridley and Meyer 1983) 

We started with one basic statistic concerning the overall performance 

of the metro - passenger revenue/total cost - and then broke it down 

into its component parts. This made clear the important fact that a 

system that performs well on one criterion may perform much less 

well on another. 

Two sequences were defined and studied: 

• Passenger revenue/total cost 

= passenger revenue/passenger km x passenger km/train km x 

train km/ total cost 

• Train km/total cost 

= train km/staff numbers x staff numbers/staff cost x staff cost / 

total cost. 

Figures for 1981 were then put to each of these ratios. Hamburg was 

indexed against London (= 100) and the results for Hamburg were: 

• Passenger revenue/passenger km = 31, 

i.e. the revenue ratio in Hamburg was 3/10th of that in London 

• Passenger km/train km = 122 

• Train km/staff numbers = 233 

• Staff numbers/staff cost = 89 

• Staff cost/total cost = 73 

Thus 

• Passenger revenue/train km = 31 x 1.22 = 37 

• Train km/total cost = 233 x 0.89 x 0.73 = 151 

• Passenger revenue/total cost = 37 x1.51 = 56 

On the basis of admittedly imperfect data, we concluded that Hamburg 

was 63 percent less effective in its revenue earning capability per trainkm 

than London. This is not surprising given the much higher fare levels 

in London. Hamburg, on the other hand, was 51 percent more effective 

in the cost productivity of train running (train km/total cost). There were 

many more comparisons in the paper that gave insights into the respective 

performance of Hamburg and London. 


35


and the self-examination engendered, 

leading to improved performance. These 

comparisons are much less a question 

of competing with others, rather of 

competition with oneself. 

At that time I was Managing Director of London Underground. To 

me, the principal value of the work was to encourage a more searching 

examination of our own performance on the Underground, which dates back 

to 1863. No amount of special pleading about age, size, tunnel diameter or 

corridor length could hide the fact that, on a number of measures, Hamburg 

outperformed London. 

A visit to Hamburg followed and the lessons learned were built into the 

London Underground’s strategic planning process. This focused a whole series 

of initiatives that involved changes in the company culture and culminated in 

changes in Board structure. The work with Hamburg also formed part of the 

basis to develop the case for more investment in the Underground, of which 

the latest example is the decision of the UK Government in October 2007 to 

proceed with the massive £16 billion Crossrail project – 25 years after it was 

first mooted. 

Several years after my work with Meyer, after becoming an academic, I 

resumed my interest in the topic of the paper we wrote. By this time 

‘‘productivity comparisons” had given way to the term ‘‘benchmarking”, now 

used worldwide within a variety of disciplines and businesses. 

What Is Benchmarking? 

In 1989 an employee of the Xerox Corporation in the USA (Camp 1989) 

wrote a paper that defined “benchmarking” as the search for industry best 

practices that leads to superior performance. Xerox, which had been in 

a fierce competitive battle with the Japanese, saw its earlier outstanding 

performance being undermined and its market share and profits declining. 

Analysis suggested that both their quality and productivity were falling 

behind to a frightening extent. Their reaction was to introduce a strategy of 


These comparisons are much 

less a question of competing 

with others, rather of competition 

with oneself.


“total quality”, based on a study of best practices among their competitors. 

Other firms in other industries quickly followed suit. 

Benchmarking has been described 

(Burgess 2000) as “a structured 

approach to finding ways to improve 

an organisation’s performance” and/ 

or “a technique used to target key 

areas for improvement in order to 

increase productivity, quality, customer 


Benchmarking .... “a structured 

approach to finding ways to 

improve an organisation’s 

performance” ... “a technique 

used to target key areas for 

improvement...” 

satisfaction and, where appropriate, competitiveness”. It involves comparing 

financial and operational performance with those of others, either internally 

between departments or sections, or externally with other organisations. 

It is important to recognize what benchmarking is not. It is not about the 

creation of league tables. Rather, benchmarking is about stimulating “why” 

questions; identifying strengths, weaknesses and trends; setting targets for 

improved performance; and, in some cases, it can support dialogues with 

government, regulators and other stakeholders (subject to confidentiality). 

In many industries today, comparison of business processes lies at the heart 

of benchmarking. The need for data collection and comparison can lead to an 

erroneous focus on the production of “league tables” showing who is better 

than whom. In fact, the essence of benchmarking is to create new attitudes that 

will lead to superior, or at least improved, performance. The proper question 

is not “how do we look?” but “what shall we do?”. Where any organisation 

appears in a “league table” will of course depend on managerial performance, 

but it will also depend on history and many other factors. 

It is hardly surprising, for example, that Singapore’s Mass Rapid Transit 

(MRT) shows superior performance to London Underground when we 

consider the age of the Underground, and what the designers of Singapore’s 

MRT had learned from the experience of others over the previous century. 

The issue is—what lessons can London learn by examining processes in 

Singapore or, indeed any other city, and vice-versa? There is much that 

managers can learn, but it is also true that no amount of managerial 

37


excellence can overcome, for example, neglect of replacement investment 

over the years. 

It is also the case that, where a series of data is collected and analyzed, one 

organisation may be “better” than another on one measure but be “worse” 

on a second. Furthermore, an organisation with “superior” performance might 

still have much to learn, or at least insights to gain, from an examination of the 

processes of others. This is particularly true where its assets are relatively new. 

Inspection of the performance of older systems, where replacement has been 

neglected, can provide salutary lessons. 

Benchmarking “clubs” most often include organisations from the same, 

or similar, industries. This is because the processes employed are likely to be 

similar and therefore easily comparable. However, lessons can also be learned 

across industries. South-West Airlines in the United States reputedly learned 

much by studying the rapid turnaround of complex equipment at pit stops in 

motor racing. In addition, benchmarking may be carried out by comparison 

within an organisation. It is probably easier to arrange but obviously less likely 

to bring in the “fresh air” of outside thinking. 

Xerox’s benchmarking process has been described as follows: 

• Planning - identify what is to be benchmarked, identify comparable 

companies, decide data collection methods, and collect data; 

• Analysis - identify performance gaps, project future performance level; 

• Integration - communicate findings and gain acceptance, establish functional 

goals; and 

• Action - develop action plans, implement actions and monitor progress, 

recalculate benchmarks. 

This last step—recalculate 

benchmarks—is instructive, with 

its emphasis on constant improvement. 

Benchmarking is not a one-off action. 

Except in the case of internal 

comparisons, information will be 

shared between competitors who 


Benchmarking is not a one-off 

action. Apart from the inherent 

benefit of learning from each 

other, this can also help to “grow 

the market” through industrywide 

improvement.


commit to collaboration for mutual advantage. Apart from the inherent 

benefit of learning from each other, this can also help to “grow the market” 

through industry-wide improvement. 

Successful Benchmarking 

A fundamental pre-requisite for successful benchmarking is commitment to 

organisational change. Because the management of change requires commitment 

and leadership from the top, benchmarking should clearly be seen to have 

the support and drive of top management. Hence, it is critical to have strong 

commitment from top management to act on any major opportunities for 

improvement as they are revealed. 

To prevent benchmarking becoming 

an academic “snapshot” of how you 

are performing, senior management 

needs to own the process and be 

seen to be steering it. 


To prevent benchmarking becoming 

an academic “snapshot” of how you 

are performing, senior management 

needs to own the process and be 

seen to be steering it. 

To be successful, it is essential that senior managers decide what is the 

mission of the organisation. This is crucial to provide all employees with a clear 

idea of the objectives that are to be attained. It should be communicated to 

everyone in the organisation in clear and unambiguous language. 

It is then necessary to translate the mission into critical success factors 

(CSFs) and key performance indicators (KPIs). The CSFs provide a focus for 

what people will be aiming to achieve to ensure that the mission is successful 

within the allotted period, while the KPIs provide targets to assess progress 

towards achievement of the CSFs. 

To ensure that improvements can be implemented, it is essential that each 

CSF and KPI is considered with direct respect to the day-to-day processes that 

are carried out. Unless what happens within the processes can be changed 

effectively, the likelihood of being able to show that the KPIs have improved 

will be reduced. Thus, KPIs should be developed in consultation with those 

people who are directly involved in carrying out the processes. Those people 

who have direct involvement with the sub-processes, activities and tasks 

should also be consulted. 

39


Because benchmarking regularly involves partnerships between organisations 

that may be competitors, often using confidential information, a high degree of 

trust is equally important in ensuring a successful benchmarking. Thus the partners 

have to work out a formal method of working. 

Finally, it is also crucial that managers understand three aspects of productivity 

performance, i.e. those that are: 

• Under the control of the organisation; 

• Inherent in the cost structure of the industry; and 

• Pertain to the particular geographic and economic circumstances that a 

metro operates in. 

Given that transport is a highly politicized occupation, managers need to 

understand these distinctions if only in “self defence” against their masters. 

My simplest example of this relates to a comparison of the financial fortunes 

of the two metro operators in Hong Kong and Singapore, i.e. Mass Transit 

Railway Corporation (MTRC) and SMRT Trains Ltd (SMRT) respectively. Both 

Hong Kong and Singapore have world class metro systems. In Hong Kong, 

MTRC’s revenue has covered the metro’s operating, maintenance, renewal 

and construction costs. In Singapore, construction costs were not covered by 

SMRT’s operating revenue. Does this mean that the people in Hong Kong were 

somehow better than the people in Singapore? Not at all. The circumstances 

are very different, including the urban densities and the different financing 

frameworks. The point is that both Hong Kong and Singapore defined their 

own objectives in their own context and met them—but importantly, met 

them in an affordable way. 

Service 

All of the discussion so far has focused on what the engineer or the operator 

can do to make their system, or their project, more productive or efficient. 

But this, on its own, is “old engineering”. Today’s engineers and operators 

recognize that the economic concept of supply and demand is essential 

to their task. Thus service to the customer becomes paramount. Other 

engineers may have to deal with the complexities of steel, concrete, water, 

electricity and the like. Those of us in the transport business have to deal 

with the most difficult “material” of all—people. 


We will not satisfy the customer 

unless we understand the nature of 

the service we provide and what the 

customer wants from that service. 

Public transport has been moving 

along a spectrum in recent years. 



Originally the ethos was that of production, but it moved on to that of the 

market, whereas now the emphasis is on service (Ridley 1996). 

What is a service? It is essentially a process. It is not physical in contrast 

to a product, and cannot be stored since it is produced and consumed at 

the same time. Another characteristic of a service is that the customer 

becomes part of the service process. It has taken some time for engineers, 

indeed many operators, to comprehend the crucial differences between 

production and service. 

If, as I believe, the task of engineers or operators is to “get things done”, 

then we need to look at other aspects of productivity and service. We not 

only need to get things done “well”, i.e. be efficient, we also need to get the 

“right” things done, i.e. be effective. There is a strong tendency to confuse 

efficiency and effectiveness. Service efficiency is often the primary concern of 

the “government customer” while service effectiveness is clearly of concern 

to our “passenger customer”. There is no merit in having efficient, but 

ineffective, public transport (because, for example, it is in the wrong place); 

nor in an effective, but inefficient, public transport that costs too much but 

attracts low ridership. 

We will not satisfy the customer 

unless we understand the nature 

of the service we provide and 

what the customer wants from 

that service. 

If we are to focus on both the government and the passenger customers, 

then we must be both efficient and effective and provide a service that is 

cost effective, i.e. one that meets customer needs at an affordable price—in 

terms of fares or subsidy or both. Service efficiency may be measured by the 

level of service output relative to the resource cost of inputs, while service 

effectiveness may be measured by the demand for use of the service relative 

to the level of service output. A cost effective service has attributes of both. 

41


Consider the following service measures: 

• Cost effectiveness 

- customer demand/ resource cost, say passenger km/ staff numbers 

• Service effectiveness 

- customer demand/ service output, say passenger km/ train km 

• Service efficiency 

- service output/ resource cost, say train km/ staff numbers 

The relationship between them is indicated by the fact that: 

• Passenger km/staff numbers 

= passenger km/train km x train km/staff numbers 

i.e. Cost effectiveness = Service effectiveness x Service efficiency 

A standard measure of system performance is the cost recovery ratio (CRR), 

i.e. the ratio of revenue to total cost. But all simple measures represent a 

complex combination of other performance measures. A particular CRR 

is not necessarily “good” or “bad” since it will be affected by both policy 

decisions and managerial performance. Not least, of course, is the fact that 

revenue is clearly a function of fares policy. Thus, 

CRR (revenue/total cost) = 

revenue/passenger km x passenger km/train km x [(train km/staff numbers)/ 

(staff cost/staff numbers)] x staff cost/total cost 

Therein lays the impact of service effectiveness (passenger km/train km) 

and efficiency (train km/staff numbers) on the performance of a metro. 

Conclusion 

An understanding of performance, based on comparisons with others, can bring 

great benefits to organisations if they proceed in a measured way. In particular, 

they should treat comparison as a self-learning process from which actions 

must follow if improvements are to be achieved. Besides making comparison on 

technology and production, it is increasingly important to focus on the service 



that metros provide to the public to ensure the delivery of a cost effective 

service which satisfi es both the government and passenger customers. 

References 

Burgess, S. M. 2000. Benchmarking for best value. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 

139(2). Municipal Engineer. 

Camp, R. C. 1989. Benchmarking. American Society for Quality Control Press, Milwaukee. 

Ridley, T. M. and Meyer, H. 1983. Productivity comparisons between railways. 45th International 

Congress, UITP, Rio de Janeiro. 

Ridley, T. M. 1996. What is a successful urban transit project? Prof Chin Fung Kee Memorial Lectures 

1991-95. Institute of Engineers Malaysia. 

Tony M Ridley is an Emeritus Professor of Transport Engineering with 

Imperial College, London, United Kingdom. He was the Professor of 

Transport Engineering at Imperial College (1991–1999) and Head of 

the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (1997–1999). 

He has held Managing Director/Chairman/Board Member positions 

with the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive, Hong Kong 

Mass Transit Railway Corporation, London Transport, London 

Underground, Docklands Light Railway and Eurotunnel plc. 

Professor Ridley was a member of Task Force 10 (Science and Technology) of the 

UN Millennium Project, Senior Transport Advisor to the London 2012 Olympic bid, and 

now a member of the Olympic Development Authority’s Independent Dispute Avoidance 

Panel. He is the Chairman of the Investments LLP for the Government’s Building Schools 

for the Future programme and the Chairman of the Steering Group of the Department for 

International Development’s Global Transport Knowledge Partnership. 


43

44 

Achieving Sustainable Urban Transport | Anthony D MAY 

Achieving Sustainable 

Urban Transport 

Anthony D MAY 

Abstract 

Singapore aspires to have a world class land transport system (LTA 1996) and in 

many ways it has already achieved one (May 2004). But the goals of governments for 

their cities are changing, with an increased emphasis on achieving a sustainable urban 

transport system (EC 2007). This paper offers a possible interpretation of this goal, 

considers the extent to which cities are currently sustainable, and reviews the barriers 

to achieving sustainability. It then looks at ways in which the decision-making process 

might be enhanced to achieve more sustainable outcomes and reviews research 

evidence on the nature of more sustainable transport strategies. Finally it suggests the 

steps which are needed to enable cities to implement such strategies. 

Introduction 

Many governments are now advocating the development of sustainable urban 

transport systems. The European Commission has recently issued a Green 

Paper on the pursuit of such a policy for all European cities (EC 2007). But the 

concept of sustainability is still being interpreted in widely differing ways, leading 

to different policy recommendations. Moreover, where there is agreement 

on what constitutes a potentially sustainable transport strategy, as in recent 

work by the then European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT 

2006), there are significant barriers to implementing such strategies. In this 

paper we consider how best to interpret the concept of sustainability, review 

evidence on the lack of sustainability in European cities, summarise recent 

JOURNEYS | Nov 2008


recommendations on sustainable strategies, and outline recent research into 

reducing the barriers to implementing such strategies. 

The Meaning of Sustainability 

The concept of sustainability was introduced by the Brundtland Commission in 

1987 as an approach which meets the needs of the current generation without 

reducing the ability of future generations to meet their needs (Brundtland 

1987). This concept of inter-generational equity remains an important force in 

current thinking, with concerns that global warming and fossil fuel depletion 

will severely limit our grandchildren’s ability to enjoy the opportunities which 

we do. 

However, the concept of sustainability has since broadened to one which 

encompasses environmental sustainability, social sustainability and economic 

sustainability (Lautso et al. 2004). The environmental aspects include the 

concerns for the global environment as well as the more immediate local 

environmental impacts of transport. The social aspects involve inequities today 

between rich and poor, within cities and between countries, but also address 

the original Brundtland concern for 

future generations. Both of these 

are areas in which it is accepted that 

enhancements are needed. But those 

enhancements will only be affordable if 

the economy itself is sustained so that 

we can afford such enhancements. 


...the concept of sustainability 

has since broadened to one 

which encompasses environmental 

sustainability, social sustainability 

and economic sustainability. 

Unfortunately, this broadening of the concept has resulted in the term being 

used to justify a wide range of differing policies and aspirations. The lack of a 

common understanding of the term has also contributed to a lack of coherent 

action. It is therefore necessary to define these terms more specifically. An 

ECMT report on Sustainable Transport Policy (ECMT 2000) identified nine 

objectives shown in Table 1. More recently some policy documents have added 

security and contributions to education and social policies to the list. 

45

46 


How Sustainable Are Our Cities Today? 

The objectives in Table 1 offer a clearer and more specific definition of sustainable 

urban transport, but the terms are still abstract. It is often easier to prompt 

action by pointing to the concrete evidence of unsustainability. The European 

Commission in its Green Paper on Urban Transport (EC 2007) presents such 

data for 2005 and the pre-enlargement EU-15. 

Table 1: Transport objectives and their contributions to sustainability 

ECMT Transport Objectives 

(2000) 


Sustainability “leg” 

economic social environmental 

Improving transport safety ✓ ✓ 

Creating wealth ✓ 

Improving access ✓ 

Reducing congestion ✓ ✓ 

Reducing severance, fear, intimidation ✓ 

Protecting landscapes and biodiversity ✓ ✓ 

Reducing noise ✓ 

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions ✓ 

Improving air quality ✓ 

Congestion was estimated to cost €100billion per year, or over 1% of 

GDP, with 80% occurring in urban areas and costs anticipated to double 

in a decade. Over 100,000 deaths are brought forward each year by 

transport-related pollutants, of which over 70% are generated in urban 

areas. Over 20% of the population is exposed to daytime noise levels of 

over 65dBA, the threshold beyond which noise has been found to increase 

the risk of heart attacks by as much as 20%. German and Dutch research 

suggests that between 20,000 and 50,000 deaths might be brought forward 

each year as a direct result of traffic noise. Road safety is another area 

in which considerable improvements have been made, but there are still 

around 13,000 direct fatalities and 210,000 serious injuries each year on 

the roads of Europe’s cities. Finally, transport in Europe’s cities accounts


for 14% of all Europe’s CO 2 emissions, a proportion which is expected to 

grow substantially, and which is clearly inconsistent with the goal of a 60% 

reduction in emissions by 2050. 

Indeed, the decision of the Commission to focus on urban transport is 

itself an indication of the severity of these problems. The Commission and its 

member states had long argued that urban transport is a matter for local and, 

at most, national governments, and that under the principle of subsidiarity, the 

Commission should not intervene. However, as its Green Paper points out, 

with cities accounting for 60% of Europe’s population and 85% of its economy, 

such problems are of direct concern to Europe as a whole. 

Cities’ Ability to Develop Sustainable Transport Strategies 

An earlier study by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT 

1995) had already focused attention on the importance of improvements in 

public transport, better management of road space and controls on the demand 

for car use as the key elements in a sustainable urban transport strategy. 

In parallel, two research 

programmes also independently 

identified the key elements of 

a sustainable urban transport 

strategy. The EC PROPOLIS project 

(Lautso et al. 2004) concluded 

that the key contributors were 


...improvements in public transport, 

better management of road space 

and controls on the demand for car 

use ... key elements in a sustainable 

urban transport strategy. 

improvements to public transport services and fares, pricing of urban car 

use and more concentrated land use development. A separate UK project 

(May et al. 2005b) identified bus frequency increases, fares reductions and 

charging for car use, together with low cost improvements in road capacity 

as the most effective combinations. 

A subsequent review (ECMT 2002), however, concluded that the 

implementation of such sustainable transport strategies was “more easily 

said than done”. The review highlighted as the principal barriers poor 

policy integration and coordination, counterproductive institutional roles, 

unsupportive regulatory frameworks, weaknesses in pricing, poor data quality 

47

48 


and quantity, limited public support and lack of political resolve. This led in 

turn to the publication of a set of key messages to national governments, who 

were seen as crucial in enabling and supporting local government initiatives 

(ECMT 2002). 

A follow-up to that study confirmed its findings and identified weaknesses 

in the process of policy formulation as a further barrier (ECMT 2006). It sent 

a further key message that “national governments should support local or 

regional authorities through technical, financial or other means as necessary 

and appropriate in the development, appraisal, monitoring and evaluation of 

integrated, sustainable, urban travel strategies”. 

A subsequent review of four ECMT projects—on accessibility enhancements, 

carbon reduction, safety and urban transport—identified similar barriers in all 

four areas of policy. It made a series of recommendations for ways in which 

governments might address them (May and Crass 2007). 

The EC City of Tomorrow research programme, conducted between 2000 

and 2005, included a number of projects on land use and transport research 

(www.lutr.net) which between them provided valuable advice on the process 

of policy formulation. Much of the guidance was encapsulated into a Decision- 

Makers’ Guidebook (May et al. 2005a) which was designed to introduce policy 

makers, senior professionals and 

interest groups to the key stages in 

policy making, and to provide advice. 

The Guidebook is available on the 

website www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk 

Its developers acknowledged the 

rich diversity of contexts and cultures 

in European cities and accepted that 

no one approach would be relevant 

for all cities. Reflecting this, the 

document provides guidance rather 

than being prescriptive. However, 

the guidance adopts a logical 

structure (Figure1) for transport 

policy formulation, which readers are 

Figure 1: The logical structure for decision making 

JOURNEYS | Nov 2008


encouraged to follow. This logical structure starts with a clear statement of 

the city’s objectives and an identification of the problems to be tackled. It 

uses these to stimulate the identification of possible solutions and overall 

strategies, which are developed taking into account the barriers to be 

overcome in implementing them. The likely impacts of these strategies are 

then predicted and appraised, prior to selecting a preferred approach for 

implementation. 

The DISTILLATE Research Programme 

The challenges which cities face in decision making have formed the focus 

of a four-year research programme, funded under the UK Engineering and 

Physical Sciences Research Council’s Sustainable Urban Environment initiative. 

The programme, DISTILLATE (Design and Implementation Support Tools for 

Integrated Local Land use, Transport and the Environment) was designed to 

help overcome those barriers to decision making which were amenable to 

research-led solutions. It set itself a vision of helping to achieve a step change in 

the way that sustainable urban transport and land use strategies are developed 

and delivered. 

After an initial scoping study, nine priority research areas which were of 

most importance to local government were identified. Seven of these were 

selected for funding, and each was encapsulated in one of the seven objectives 

of the programme: 

1. To document and review the barriers to the delivery of sustainable 

strategies; 

2. To establish an effective set of core indicators and targets as input to 

strategy formulation, forecasting and appraisal; 

3. To develop new methods for generating appropriate strategy and scheme 

options and for designing integrated strategies; 

4. To develop approaches for overcoming the financial barriers to effective 

implementation; 

5. To enhance existing predictive models to reflect the impact of the 

wider range of policy instruments, and to facilitate interactive strategy 

development; 


49

50 


6. To improve the methods used for appraisal to reflect more effectively 

the requirements of sustainability; and 

7. To support more effective collaboration between agencies responsible for 

transport strategy development, both within and between local 

authorities. 

The next five sections consider some of the outputs from areas 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 

above. Further detail is available from the project website (www.distillate.ac.uk) 

and May, Page and Hull (2008). 

The initial survey of barriers 

A first survey undertaken in September 2004 sought to map out the issues 

affecting the delivery of integrated and sustainable transport solutions, and 

help develop the more detailed approach to the other programme objectives. 

To elicit self-reflection by the respondents, they were asked how “satisfied” 

they were about practices within their own authority and how important 

a particular issue was to them. A seriousness score was derived from the 

product of the importance and satisfaction responses (Hull and Tricker 2005). 

The results in Figure 2 show that the most problematic stages are in strategy 

option generation, modelling, strategic appraisal, funding, implementation and 

monitoring and evaluation. 

Figure 2: Problematic stages in the process of transport planning 

JOURNEYS | Nov 2008


Subsequently respondents were asked about the importance of different 

policy instruments and their satisfaction with their ability to employ them. 

Figure 3 shows the resulting seriousness scores, and illustrates the particular 

problems with managing bus services, fares, restraint measures and land use 

planning. Since these are precisely the policy instruments which the studies 

reported above have shown are central to effective sustainable transport 

strategies, this is a serious weakness. 

Figure 3: Seriousness of challenges in the implementation of transport strategies 

Selecting suitable indicators 

Monitoring and evaluation was found to be one of the most difficult processes. 

Monitoring had become a task carried out to satisfy others rather than, as 

suggested in Figure 1, a key input to the policy formulation process. Moreover, 

many of the indicators simply measured outputs in terms of actions taken (such 

as length of cycle lane) rather than intermediate outcomes (such as growth in 

cycling) or final outcomes (such as reductions in congestion or pollution). 

In response, the DISTILLATE team has produced three guidebooks (Marsden 

et al. 2008a, b, c). The first advises readers on how to design a monitoring 

strategy to support sustainable transport goals, such as those listed in Table 1. 

It demonstrates the use of a causal flow diagram between interventions (such 


51

52 


as cycle lanes) and objectives (such as environmental improvement) to identify 

the information needed to understand what is happening. It advocates the 

use of a combination of intermediate outcome and final outcome indicators 

to better understand the impacts of a given strategy. The second guidebook 

provides more detailed advice on how to select indicators suitable for a 

particular objective, and offers an audit process. The final guidebook broadens 

the scope to consider how such monitoring strategies can be extended to 

other policy sectors and to regional strategy. 

Generating strategic policy options 

A study of the UK Local Transport Plan process found that cities were typically 

not very innovative, placed too much emphasis on supply-side solutions, were 

reluctant to use demand management measures and lacked information on 

the performance of different solutions (Atkins 2007). The Eddington Report 

into transport and the economy recommended that the government should 

consider steps to improve option generation in urban areas, so that the right 

policies can be brought forward (Eddington 2006). 

As a contribution, the DISTILLATE team has developed a strategic option 

generation tool that uses the KonSULT library of some 42 transport and 

land use policy instruments (www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk). The option generator 

enables users to interrogate KonSULT to identify those instruments which are 

likely to be most useful in a specified context. The aim is to broaden the range 

of policy instruments which are considered, rather than to dictate a particular 

approach. Users can focus on their objectives, problems or performance 

indicators, specify their relative importance, indicate the overall strategy which 

they wish to pursue and identify the context in which they are working. The 

option generator then uses the assessment scores for each instrument in 

KonSULT to identify those instruments which are likely to contribute most 

effectively. Its development is described more fully in Kelly et al. (2008). 

JOURNEYS | Nov 2008

Predicting the impacts of alternative solutions 


The impacts of many of the policy options are difficult to predict without 

access to a model which reflects the complex interactions between demand 

and supply. However, many local authorities used limited or no modelling. It 

emerged from the DISTILLATE survey that the principal barriers were the 

complexity of existing models, lack of skills in using them, failure to understand 

and hence to trust their outputs, and inability to model many of the newer 

policy instruments. 

The DISTILLATE programme has included more demand management 

and public transport measures in pre-existing transport and network 

models (Shepherd et al. 2008). However its principal contribution was the 

enhancement of a simpler strategic land use-transport model, MARS, for use 

in strategy development. MARS is capable of analysing policy combinations 

at the metropolitan level and assessing their impacts over a 30-year planning 

period in less than one minute (Pfaffenbichler et al. 2008). A “flight simulator” 

approach has been adopted which allows users to change policies in a simulation 

environment with easy to use “slider bars”. Outputs, based on intermediate 

and final outcome indicators, can be presented in graphical, tabular and mapbased 

formats. In addition an optimisation facility can be used to optimise 

a package of policy instruments against a given set of objectives or targets. 

Potentially the policy maker can take a package of suggested policy instruments 

from KonSULT and decide how best to combine them in a given context. This 

facility also enables the planner to look at the impacts of target setting and to 

identify potential trajectories for key indicators (Shepherd et al. 2008). 

Appraising the performance of policy options 

Used effectively, appraisal is invaluable in helping to enhance the design of a 

given policy option, to select the best performing of a series of alternative 

schemes, and in understanding how a package of policy instruments can best 

be combined. Appraisal in all of these cases should be based on the same 

outcome indicators as those used earlier in the policy process. 


53

54 


In practice our local authorities perceived appraisal, whose procedures are 

tightly specified in the UK, as a hurdle to be overcome in seeking government 

funding, rather than as a design tool in its own right. In particular, they felt that 

the outcome of appraisal, with its emphasis on value for money, was inconsistent 

with the authority’s underlying objectives. Once again, they found demand 

management measures particularly difficult to appraise, but also had problems 

with public transport provision and fares, land use policies and smaller schemes 

for which they perceived appraisal methods to be too cumbersome. 

Against this background, the DISTILLATE team developed a flexible appraisal 

method specifically for small schemes and for early stage prioritisation. This 

requires local authorities to select indicators based on the guidance outlined 

above, score the impact of a given scheme against each indicator and then weight 

the indicators to obtain an overall performance score which is consistent with 

the authority’s priorities (Jopson et al. 2007). In addition a guidebook has 

been produced to suggest ways of overcoming the potential inconsistencies 

between the use of indicators, targets and valuation of benefits (May, Page and 

Forrester 2008). 

Achieving Sustainability 

In conclusion, it is important to stress that sustainability must remain an aim, rather 

than a measurable goal which we will recognise once we have reached it. We now 

have much clearer guidance on what needs to be done to make cities’ transport 

systems more sustainable. The key policy instruments are enhancements to public 

transport service levels, quality and fares; charging for the externalities caused by 

road use; land use plans which are consistent with these two policies; and, potentially, 

reallocation of road space to more sustainable modes and intensified use of “soft” 

measures which encourage greater use of such modes. Such strategies should be 

relatively inexpensive, by avoiding large infrastructure projects and expecting users 

to meet many of the costs of the transport system. 

But the principal barriers to implementing such strategies are outside the 

traditional sphere of transport planners and engineers. Overcoming them 

requires a concerted effort on many fronts, including more appropriate 

JOURNEYS | Nov 2008


institutional structures, improved policy processes, greater acceptability, better 

information and more flexible finance (May and Crass 2007). 

Our own work in the DISTILLATE research programme has focused 

particularly on improvements in the policy process. It offers methods for 

specifying performance indicators, using them to generate more appropriate 

policy and strategy options, predicting their impacts interactively using 

streamlined predictive models, and appraising them in ways which are 

consistent with the city’s objectives. It also provides advice on the more 

effective use of finance and the development of partnership working. 

However, achieving the step change in policy formulation which DISTILLATE 

envisaged will require continued effort to disseminate these enhancements 

and to encourage their use. 

Acknowledgements 

This paper is based on a lecture given as SMRT Professor of Transport Policy at Nanyang Technological 

University (NTU) in October 2007. The support of SMRT and NTU is gratefully acknowledged. The 

research reported was funded by the European Commission, the European Conference of Ministers 

of Transport and the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Their support and the 

contributions of project partners are similarly acknowledged. The responsibility for the opinions and 

conclusions drawn in the paper rests solely with the author. 

References 

Atkins. 2007. Long Term Process and Impact Evaluation of the Local Transport Plan Policy: Final 

Report. Department for Transport, London. 

Brundtland, G. et al. 1987. Our common future. Report of the 1987 World Commission on 

Environment and Development. OUP, Oxford. 

European Commission DG Energy and Transport. 2007. Towards a New Culture for Urban Mobility. 

DGTREN, Brussels. 

European Conference of Ministers of Transport. 1995. Urban Travel and Sustainable Development. 

OECD, Paris. 

European Conference of Ministers of Transport. 2000. Sustainable Transport Policies. OECD, Paris. 

European Conference of Ministers of Transport. 2002. Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel 

Policies. OECD, Paris. 


55

56 


European Conference of Ministers of Transport. 2006. Sustainable Urban Travel: Implementing 

Sustainable Uban Travel Policies: Applying the 2001 Key Messages. OECD, Paris. 

Eddington, Sir Rod. 2006. The Eddington Report. Department for Transport, London. 

Hull, A. D. and Tricker, R. 2005. Sustainable urban environments: Assessing the barriers to sustainable 

transport. Engineering Sustainability, 2005, 158, pp. 171-180. 

Jopson, A. F., Menaz, B. and Page, M. 2007. Appraisal: A barrier to sustainable transport? Paper 

submitted to the 11th World Conference of Transport Research, Berkeley. 

Kelly, C. E., May, A. D. and Jopson, A. F. 2008. Option generation tools for sustainable urban 

transport strategies. Transport Policy (under review). 

Lautso, K. et al. 2004. Planning and Research of Policies for Land Use and Transport for Increasing 

Urban Sustainability (PROPOLIS): Final Report to the European Commission. Brussels, EC. 

Land Transport Authority. 1996. A World Class Land Transport System. LTA, Singapore. 

Marsden, G. R. et al. 2008a. Designing and Monitoring Strategy to Support Sustainable Tansport 

Goals. Institute for Transport Studies, Leeds. 

Marsden, G. R. et al. 2008b. Advice on Selecting Indicators for Sustainable Transport. Institute for 

Transport Studies, Leeds. 

Marsden, G. R. et al. 2008c. Monitoring across Sectors and Spatial Levels for Sustainable Transport: 

A Good Practice Guide. Institute for Transport Studies, Leeds. 

May, A. D. 2004. Singapore: The development of a world class transport system. Transport Reviews 

24(1). 

May, A. D. et al. 2005a. Developing Sustainable Urban Land Use and Transport Strategies: A Decision- 

Makers’ Guidebook. Institute for Transport Studies, Leeds. www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk 

May, A. D., Shepherd, S. P., Emberger, G., Ash, A., Zhang, X. and Paulley, N. 2005b. Optimal land use 

and transport strategies: Methodology and application to European cities. Transportation Research 

Record. 

May, A. D. and Crass, M. 2007. Sustainability in transport: Implications for policy makers. 

Transportation Research Record. 

May, A. D., Page, M. and Forrester, J. 2008. Addressing the inconsistencies in appraisal practice. 

Submission to NATA Refresh. www.distillate.ac.uk 

May, A. D., Page, M. and Hull, A. D. 2008. Decision support tools for sustainable urban transport. 

Transport Policy (under review). 

Pfaffenbichler, P., Emberger, G. and Shepherd, S. P. 2008. The integrated dynamic land use and 

transport model MARS. Networks and Spatial Economics (in press). 

Shepherd, S. P. et al. 2008. Overcoming barriers to model use: Conclusions from the DISTILLATE 

project. European Journal of Transport Infrastructure Research (under review). 

JOURNEYS | Nov 2008


Anthony D May is a Research Professor of Transport Engineering at 

the University of Leeds, United Kingdom. He has been a professor at 

Leeds since 1977, where his principal research interests have focused 

on urban transport and sustainability. Professor May has over 40 

years’ experience in transport planning and traffi c engineering. He has 

served as Director of the Institute for Transport Studies, Dean of the 

Faculty of Engineering and Pro Vice Chancellor for Research. He was 

elected to Fellowship of the Royal Academy of Engineering in 1995, and awarded the OBE 

for services to transport engineering in 2004. Professor May is currently President of the 

World Conference on Transport Research Society. 


57

58 

Urban Transportation Patterns | KIM Kwang Sik 

Urban Transportation Patterns in 

Selected Canadian and Korean 

Cities: A Comparison 

KIM Kwang Sik 

Abstract 

This paper compares urban transportation patterns in selected Canadian and Korean 

cities. The results of the comparative analysis indicate that in general, cities with higher 

population and employment densities, higher transit service provision and lower road 

infrastructure supply have lower levels of car ownership and car use, and higher 

levels of transit use. The Canadian urban areas are more automobile dependent 

with high levels of car ownership. This is likely due to the fact that most Canadian 

urban areas developed during a period when car ownership increased rapidly. These 

trends supported the development of sprawling, low density, auto-oriented suburbs 

where transit services have not been competitive with the automobile, except for trips 

downtown. The Korean urban areas, in contrast, have highly dense urban forms with 

high levels of transit use, service, ridership and shorter trip lengths. However, Korean 

urban areas are suffering from extremely high levels of congestion given their high 

density and limited road capacity. 

Introduction 

Metropolitan areas are becoming more alike in this era of globalization 

(Sorensen et al. 2004). A key thesis is whether similarities can be found in 

urban cities of different nations, and if so, the cause of those similarities. This 

may give evidence of a common urban transportation phenomenon catalyzed 

by the globalization of the modern lifestyle. 

JOURNEYS | Nov 2008



This paper compares the urban transportation patterns in the large 

Canadian urban areas of Toronto, Ottawa-Gatineau, Calgary and Vancouver 

to the Korean cities of Seoul and Inchon, which are large urban areas in the 

capital region of Korea. The study uses a series of indicators developed by the 

Transportation Association of Canada and a transportation census from the 

Seoul Metropolitan Government. The use of urban indicators is a practical way 

to gather and organize data to identify comparative trends and patterns in 

urban studies. The indicators also help to describe and measure the differences 

and similarities between the Canadian and Korean urban areas. 

Population and Employment Characteristics 

Table 1 presents population and employment information for each city. Seoul is a 

highly dense city with the highest population and employment, and the smallest 

land area. The Canadian urban areas are of low population and employment 

density, in contrast with Seoul’s density which is 10 to 22 times higher. In 

Canadian cities, the trends of urban sprawl, decentralization of population 

and employment, and inner city decline evolved over the last three decades 

(McCann 1999). 

In the case of Seoul, the central area still keeps its function as a dominant 

employment centre with strong business, commercial and civic activities. The 

Table 1: Patterns of population and employment distribution in Existing Urban Areas (EUAs) 

Seoul Inchon Toronto 

Ottawa- 

Gatineau 

Calgary Vancouver 

Population 10,469,852 2,320,791 3,970,000 807,555 768,000 1,680,000 

Employment 4,045,537 664,108 1,940,000 448,175 390,000 797,000 

Population 

density 

(people/km 2 ) 

Employment 

density 

(jobs/km 2 ) 

17,289 2,428 1,726 786 1,067 1,292 

6,680 695 843 436 542 613 

Land area (km 2 ) 605 956 2,300 1,027 720 1,300 

Note: Transportation Association of Canada defines Existing Urban Area (EUA) as currently built-up area which 

is a large urban area together with adjacent urban and rural areas that have a high degree of social and 

economic integration with the urban core. 

59


Canadian urban areas, on the other hand, have central cores that have become 

areas of high employment concentration but with increasingly significant 

residential populations. Many Canadian cities have high levels of downtown 

residential population living in condominiums and apartments. This is 

particularly true for Toronto and Vancouver, where new, high-density residential 

developments have proceeded rapidly while office growth has stagnated. It 

can be beneficial to have employment densities close to the pattern of 

population density in order to reduce the distance of home to work travel. 

The new residential developments 

in Canadian cities have tended to 

reduce trip lengths, as the new 

residents have tended to live and 

work downtown, with most walking 

to work. 

Transportation Supply Patterns 

Table 2 provides transportation supply information such as length of arterials, 

expressways, and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Numbers of automobiles 

and transit seat-kilometre per capita in the morning peak hours, and off-street 

parking spaces per employee in CBD are also presented. 

Table 2: Characteristics of transportation supply 

Arterial lane-km per 1,000 

capita in EUA 


It can be beneficial to have 

employment densities close to 

the pattern of population density 

in order to reduce the distance of 

home to work travel. 

Seoul Inchon Toronto Ottawa- 

Gatineau 


0.27 0.30 2.52 3.81 5.22 3.32 

Expressway lane-km per 

1,000 capita in EUA 0.11 0.09 0.50 0.77 1.74 0.33 

HOV lane-km per 100,000 

capita in EUA 

4.17 2.44 2.34 6.07 N/A 1.85 

Automobiles per capita in 

EUA 0.21 0.22 0.55 0.57 0.76 0.56 

AM peak period transit 

seat-km per capita in EUA 0.51 N/A 2.42 2.60 2.07 1.59 

Off-street parking spaces 

per employee in CBD 1.27 0.23 0.18 0.36 0.51 0.38



Canadian cities have a higher road supply than their Korean counterparts. 

This is further evidence of the very different urban form of the two groups 

of cities. Most Canadian cities have a more dispersed spatial structure with 

significant automobile use for peak hour travel and thus higher infrastructure 

requirements. The Korean cities, in contrast, have evolved a more compact 

form that is highly dependent on public transportation. 

While the two groups of cities have taken very different paths to their present 

status since the mid 1980s, increasing automobile use in Korea has significantly 

changed the urban spatial structure with a growing demand for more road 

and parking spaces. High demand for high-rise apartments with cheaper land 

values in outlying areas or new towns has contributed to outward movement 

of population. This trend suggests that newly developing areas in Korean cities 

are becoming more automobile-oriented and need to be carefully managed in 

the planning process. This is likely attributed to the fact that the growth rate 

of car ownership (3.7% in Seoul and 7.9% in Inchon between 1994 and 2004) 

is much greater than the population growth rate (-0.006% in Seoul and 1.6% in 

Inchon during the same period). The annual economic growth rates of 7.8% in 

Seoul and 8.4% in Inchon between 1995 and 2004 have contributed to rising 

car ownership of the Korean cities. 

Values of HOV lane-kilometre per capita provide an indication of the priority 

of bus- and carpool-exclusive lanes. Ottawa-Gatineau shows the highest HOV 

lane-kilometres, followed by Seoul and Inchon. It should be noted that Ottawa- 

Gatineau has a transitway system consisting of 26 km of two-way bus-only 

roadway and 28 km of bus lanes and bus-only shoulder lanes. Ottawa also has 

a short diesel light rail transit (LRT) system using existing track, fully integrated 

with the transitway system in terms of fares, schedules and terminals. Calgary 

has no HOV lanes but maintains a successful LRT system, as does Vancouver. 

Seoul has had exclusive bus lanes on the existing road network since early 

1990s to improve the quality of service for bus passengers. The designation of 

the bus-only lanes has contributed to a better flow of the bus fleet operating 

in and around Seoul. 

61


Most of the exclusive bus lanes in Seoul used to be along the curb. These 

lanes did not function well due to conflicts with other vehicles. Since July 2004 

exclusive bus lanes have been constructed in the median of six major corridors 

in the outlying parts of the city. These exclusive lanes are restricted to trunkline 

buses to maintain high travel speeds and have contributed to faster bus 

travel times (SMG 2005). The intent is to continue expanding the lanes on the 

main arterial roads in other parts of Seoul. 

Comparing car ownership across the urban areas shows an interesting 

contrast. Car ownership per capita in the Canadian urban areas is higher 

compared to that in Seoul and Inchon. Among the Canadian cities, Calgary 

has much higher auto ownership. High auto ownership is generally associated 

with a combination of lower densities, lower transit service provision and 

higher road supply dedicated to the automobile. Toronto and Vancouver show 

relatively lower levels of car ownership and correspondingly higher population 

and employment densities. 

Table 2 shows the transit seat-kilometre per capita for the morning peak 

hour, estimated based on average transit seats and revenues (TAC 1999). These 

numbers help to roughly compare the amount of public transportation service 

provided in the cities. The high transit supply in the Canadian cities results from 

high average trip lengths and the provision of extensive CBD-focused transit 

systems such as the Ottawa-Carlton Regional Commission (OC Transpo), the 

Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), the Government of Ontario (GO) Transit, 

and Calgary Transit. 

Seoul’s central business district 

has the highest supply of off-street 

parking space, whereas Toronto has 

the lowest. In the case of Seoul, all 

new construction or modification of 

all buildings in excess of a certain size 

are required to provide underground 

parking garages. These garages 

account for 81 percent of off-street 

parking spaces in Seoul’s central area. Recognising that more available parking 


Recognising that more available 

parking supply encourages greater 

car use, Seoul has recently 

introduced a policy that limits the 

number of parking lots for certain 

categories of building and land 

use type...



supply encourages greater car use, Seoul has recently introduced a policy that 

limits the number of parking lots for certain categories of building and land use 

type in the central and sub-central areas. However, the tighter parking policy 

has not significantly reduced car use or illegal parking in the areas mainly due 

to lack of parking enforcement. 

In contrast, most Canadian cities have parking policies to actively enforce 

tight parking supply in the CBD, although some cities have generous minimum 

parking standards. For example, Vancouver has introduced strategies such 

as parking maximums, reduced minimums and flexible requirements, and 

restriction of principal use facilities in the form of temporary parking operations 

(GVRD 1996). Ottawa central area encourages the provision of short-term 

parking and discourages long-term parking to sustain a high transit usage (RMOC 

1994). Since the mid-1970s, Toronto has limited its parking supply in Downtown 

Toronto, with paid parking being the 

norm. The city has actively pursued 

parking management measures to 

reduce the attractiveness of automobile 

travel relative to public transit, walking 

or cycling. 

Transportation Demand Patterns 

Toronto ... has actively pursued 

parking management measures 

to reduce the attractiveness of 

automobile travel relative to 

public transit... 

Table 3 presents transportation demand patterns such as the transit and 

automobile modal shares, automobile occupancies, morning peak hour and 

24-hour person trips and annual transit rides per capita for the Existing Urban 

Areas (EUAs). 

Toronto has the highest transit modal shares for trips to and from the 

central area in the morning peak period. This may be in part the result of 

an extensive CBD oriented transit network which includes the GO Transit 

commuter rail system and the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) subway, 

streetcar and bus system. 

Seoul and Inchon also show relatively high transit modal shares. The 

Korean cities’ transit network includes several subway lines, commuter train 

63


Table 3 : Characteristics of transportation demand 

Seoul Inchon Toronto Ottawa- 

Gatineau 



AM peak period transit 

mode share to/from CBD 51.1 50.9 56.1 32.8 33.1 38.7 

AM peak period 

automobile mode share 

to/from CBD (driver + 

passenger) 

AM peak period 

automobile occupancy 

to/from CBD 

AM peak period persontrips 

per capita for EUA 

24-h person trips per 

capita for EUA 

Annual transit rides per 

capita for EUA 

25.5 38.7 38.9 55.0 60.9 54.6 

1.60 1.63 1.21 1.28 1.30 1.19 

0.28 0.30 0.24 0.23 0.26 0.31 

2.57 2.08 2.05 2.80 3.71 3.44 

376 217 111 102 91 73 

and buses. As of 2006, there are 287 km and 22 km of rail transit lines beneath 

Seoul and Inchon respectively. There are also 178 km of regional surface rail 

linking Seoul with new towns, satellite communities and large cities such as 

Inchon and Suwon. 

The Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) executed an innovative bus 

system reform in July 2004 (Pucher et al. 2005; Kim & Dickey 2006). Before 

2004 there were 57 bus companies with about 8,000 buses operating 

365 conventional bus lines in Seoul. Bus lines were reorganized as trunk, 

feeder and circular, and bus numbers were organized into eight areas. The 

monopolized route systems were reorganized as a semi-public operation 

with a route tendering system to induce competition between bus operators. 

The tendering system is based on contracts between Seoul city government 

and bus operators. The contract does not allow altering routes, fares and the 

subsidy level. A unified fare system was introduced with the development 

of a new card system which allows transfers between buses, buses and the 

subway, and other public transportation such as the community bus. The bus 

reform has increased the number of bus users by 11.2 percent and public 

transportation revenues (buses and the subway) by 12.9 percent between 

November 2004 and November 2005 (SMG 2005).



Comparing the automobile modal share to and from the CBD in the 

morning peak period shows that Canadian cities have much higher proportions 

than the two Korean cities. This comparison indicates that Canadian urban 

areas, except Toronto, have a more car-oriented dispersed urban structure 

than the Korean urban areas. While the Toronto area has become increasingly 

dispersed, most travel to the CBD continues to use transit because of a 

combination of good transit service and limited, expensive parking in the 

CBD. As former City of Toronto residents who work downtown move to the 

suburban Regional Municipalities, they cease to be TTC subway riders and 

become GO Transit commuter rail patrons. 

Values of annual transit ridership per capita indicate the average rides on 

public transportation for the urban areas. As expected, this is much higher 

for Korean cities. This indicates 

that the more dense urban form 

is able to provide higher transit 

service intensity and thus can offer 

more frequent service to a greater 

number of people. The more 

...more dense urban form is able 

to provide higher transit service 

intensity and thus can offer more 

frequent service to a greater 

number of people. 

compact cities with higher urban densities have higher transit ridership and 

lower dependency on car use. This confirms the findings presented by others 

(Newman & Kenworthy 1999; Litman 2005). 

Among Canadian cities, Toronto and Ottawa-Gatineau have the highest 

transit ridership. It can be interpreted that Toronto has relatively high 

population and employment densities, and transit-oriented urban form, 

particularly in the central area. As mentioned above, Toronto maintains an 

extensive network of public transit that plays a role in keeping high levels of 

transit service, while limiting automobile use on arterial and express roads. 

In the case of Calgary, transit supply has significantly increased over the last 

years. However, as a result of road and parking infrastructure provisions 

and outward urban expansion, Calgary has experienced the loss of transit 

modal share (City of Calgary 1995). Vancouver’s low transit use is partly 

because a much higher proportion of downtown workers live in or near the 

downtown and walk to/from work, compared to other Canadian cities. 

65


Discussion and Summary 

The findings of this study can be used to suggest the relationships between land 

use and transportation, and help policy makers to change or establish policy 

measures which might enhance integration of land use and transportation in 

support of more sustainable transportation systems. 

The study indicates that in general, urban areas with higher population 

and employment densities, higher transit service provision and lower road 

infrastructure supply have lower levels of car ownership and car use, and 

higher levels of transit use. The Canadian urban areas are more automobile 

dependent with high levels of car ownership than Korean urban areas. This 

is likely due to the fact that most Canadian urban areas developed during 

a period when car ownership increased rapidly. These trends supported 

the development of sprawling, low density, auto-oriented suburbs where 

transit services have not been competitive with the auto, except for trips 

to downtown. 

The Korean urban areas, in contrast, have highly dense urban forms with 

high levels of transit service and ridership and shorter trip lengths. However, 

Korean urban areas are suffering from extremely high levels of congestion 

given their high density and limited road capacity. 

Some Canadian urban areas such as Toronto seems to have the potential 

of attaining much higher levels of transit use and lower levels of automobile 

use given their land use and transportation planning policies. Toronto has a 

higher transit modal share than the Korean cities which have a fraction of the 

car ownership and eight times the density. This makes the point of Bernick 

and Cervero’s findings (1997: 83): “The biggest benefits come from going from 

very low to moderate densities, say from an average of 4 units per acre to 10 

to 15 units per acre... Increasing densities to mid- and high-rise apartments 

add relatively smaller benefits in terms of trip reduction. One doesn’t need 

Hong Kong-like densities to sustain mass transit”. As Kenworthy and Newman 

(1994) observed, Toronto is unique in its land use and transportation patterns. 

Despite Toronto’s success in achieving relatively high transit use, it still has 

much higher auto use than in Korean cities. This is probably because relatively 




few Toronto residents walk to/from work, something that is much more 

common in Korean cities. 

There is something of a “chicken-and-egg” dilemma with causal statements 

about car and transit use, population and employment density. Density seems 

to be driving the evolution in urban form and transit modal share but it is 

strongly influenced by the mode choices available to the population. However, 

Korean urban areas are losing their spatial and transportation efficiencies as 

cars become more popular. These patterns may be evolving in the opposite 

direction from some Canadian urban areas which are trying to introduce policy 

alternatives to car dependence with sustainable urban development schemes 

and more sustainable modes of transportation. 

It has been argued that urban structure with higher densities will encourage 

transit use. However, the data from Toronto show that urban density is not 

the only key factor. Likely transit use and rates of car ownership reflect the 

patterns of land uses in a city and the availability of competitive transit services. 

For example, while many people living in the city can live without a car (25 

percent of City of Toronto households do not own a car), because of land use 

and transit service factors, about 95 percent of households in the suburban 

areas around Toronto own at least one car. Planners and policy makers should 

therefore find ways to make car use less attractive or public transportation 

use more affordable. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, lessons that Korean urban areas and cities in other countries 

can learn from Canadian urban areas are to improve air quality by reducing 

levels of traffic congestion, support tighter enforcement of parking restrictions 

in central areas, and provide more travel choices by building LRT systems 

or alternatives to LRT. On the other hand, Korean urban areas show that 

higher urban densities with mixed-use development in extended urban areas 

and enhancing public transportation use are important. Urban transportation 

and land use policy must adopt a fully integrated approach. While excessive 

transportation demand resulting in congestion may need to be more closely 

67


regulated, policy must continue to focus on infrastructure restraints so as to 

suppress freedom of mobility through car dependency. 

The limitations and comprehensiveness of the indicators used in the study 

should be noted. In particular, the data set of indicators did not include all 

relevant modes such as rail transit, cycling and walking. The conclusions require 

further research or analysis to be of better utility to planners and policy makers. 

Subsequent research should move beyond the description of different transit 

systems and urban forms, to the implications for planning practice. 

References 

Bernick, M. & Cevero, R. 1997. Transit Villages in the 21st Century. McGraw-Hill, New York. 

City of Calgary. 1995. Calgary Transportation Plan. The City of Calgary. 

Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). 1996. A Comprehensive Parking Management Strategy 

for Greater Vancouver. Urban Systems Ltd, Vancouver. 

Kenworthy, J. & Newman, P. 1994. Toronto: Paradigm regained. Australian Planner, 31(3), 137-147. 

Kim, K.S. & Dickey, J. 2006. Role of urban governance in the process of bus system reform in Seoul. 

Habitat International, 30, 83-99. 

Litman, T. 2005. Land use impacts on transport: How land use affects travel behavior. Victoria 

Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, Canada. 

McCann, L. 1999. Suburbs of desire: The suburban landscape of Canadian cities, c. 1900-1950. In 

Harris, R. & Larkham, P.J. (Eds.), Changing Suburbs: Foundation, Form and Function (pp. 111-145). 

E & Fn Spon, London. 

Newman, P. & Kenworthy, J. 1999. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. 

Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Pucher, J., Park, H.Y., Kim, M.H. & Song, J.M. 2005. Public transport in Seoul: Meeting the burgeoning 

travel demands of a megacity. Public Transport International, 54(3), 54-61. 

Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton (RMOC). 1994. Transportation in Ottawa-Carleton. 

Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. 

Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG). 2005. Evaluation of public transportation reform. Seoul 

Metropolitan Government. 




Sorensen, A., Marcotullio, P.J. & Grant, J. 2004. Towards sustainable cities. In Sorensen, A., 

Marcotullio, P. J. & Grant, J. (Eds.) Towards Sustainable Cities: East Asian, North American and 

European Perspectives on Managing Urban Regions (pp. 3-23). Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Aldershot. 

Transportation Association of Canada (TAC). 1999. Urban Transportation Indicators Survey #2: Final 

Report. Transportation Association of Canada, Toronto. 

Kim Kwang Sik is a Professor of Department of Public Administration 

and Graduate School of Governance focusing on city planning and 

transportation studies and the Director of the Sustainable Urban 

Development Institute with Sungkyunkwan University, Korea. Formerly 

President of the Korea Society of Transportation, Professor Kim has 

served on several Korea/ Seoul transport and planning committees. 

He has extensive experience in the areas of bus and taxi reform and 

chaired the Citizen Committee that oversaw the Seoul Bus Reform. He currently chairs 

Seoul’s Bus Transportation Policy Citizen Committee and Taxi Reform Citizen Committee. 

69

journeys - LTA Academy - Land Transport Authority

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?