Journal of Transportation Technologies, 2013, 3, 272-287
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jtts.2013.34029 Published Online October 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/jtts)
Peak Car Use and the Rise of Global Rail: Why This Is
Happening and What It Means for Large and Small Cities
Peter Newman1, Jeffrey Kenworthy1, Garry Glazebrook2
1
Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute, Fremantle, Australia
2
University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Sydney, Australia
Email: P.Newman@curtin.edu.au, garry.glazebrook@uts.edu.au, j.kenworthy@curtin.edu.au
Received June 20, 2013; revised July 22, 2013; accepted August 29, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Peter Newman et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ABSTRACT
The 21st century promises some dramatic changes—some expected, others surprising. One of the more surprising
changes is the dramatic peaking in car use and an associated increase in the world’s urban rail systems. This paper sets
out what is happening with the growth of rail, especially in the traditional car dependent cities of the US and Australia,
and why this is happening, particularly its relationship to car use declines. It provides new data on the plateau in the
speed of urban car transportation that supports rail’s increasing role compared to cars in cities everywhere, as well as
other structural, economic and cultural changes that indicate a move away from car dependent urbanism. The paper
suggests that the rise of urban rail is a contributing factor in peak car use through the relative reduction in speed of traffic compared to transit, especially rail, as well as the growing value of dense, knowledge-based centers that depend on
rail access for their viability and cultural attraction. Finally, the paper suggests what can be done to make rail work better based on some best practice trends in large cities and small car dependent cities.
Keywords: Peak Car Use; Transit and Car Use Trends; Transit Relative Speed; Rail Renaissance; Urban Rail
1. Introduction
There is now a major rail revival around the world, including light rail, metro rail, heavy rail, and high-speed
rail. This reflects growing concerns by city, regional and
national governments about the need to make their
transportation systems more sustainable, their cities more
livable, and their economies more resilient to future
shocks from the peaking of oil supplies and from the
need to reduce CO2 emissions in the face of global
warming. Some cities such as Seoul are even looking to
how urban rail, in conjunction with tearing down of major freeway infrastructure, can help to create regenerative
urban environments [1].
The multiple advantages of modern urban rail are
clearly one of its great attractions to policy makers. References [2-4] summarize some major advantages of rail
which include:
1) Lower per-capita traffic congestion costs.
2) Lower per capita private passenger transportation
energy use.
3) Lower per capita emissions from the transportationsector.
4) Lower per capita traffic fatalities.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
5) Lower per capita consumer transportation expenditures.
6) Higher per capita transit service provision.
7) Higher per capita transit ridership.
8) Higher transit commute mode split.
9) Lower transit operating costs per passenger mile.
10) Higher transit service operating cost recovery.
11) Lower CBD parking per 1000 jobs.
12) Better overall urban design in the city especially
through Light Rail Transit (LRT) systems.
Many of these advantages have been known for some
time, so the surprise is how dramatically successful these
urban rail systems are now appearing, with their patronage growth far exceeding expectations in most cases. It is
paralleling the phenomenon of peak car use [5].
It would therefore appear to be reflecting changes in
the structure of cities, individual travel behavior and
housing preferences, and the beginning of a shift away
from the dominant car-based urban sprawl paradigm of
the 20th century. The paper is thus attempting to understand these two phenomena and see how they are linked
through the structure of cities.
Table 1 captures the overall picture for a wide range
of cities across the globe, summarized into their regional
JTTs
P. NEWMAN
ET AL.
273
Table 1. Changes in transit service and use by mode in a global sample of cities, 1995 to 2005 [6].
US Cities
Canadian Cities
Australian Cities
Variable
1995
2005
Change
1995
2005
Change
1995
2005
Change
Total rail seat kilometers per person
756
1006
33.1%
676
841
24.4%
2668
2763
3.6%
Total bus seat kilometers per person
804
855
6.3%
1607
1522
−5.3%
1283
1265
−1.4%
Total
60
67
11.7%
140
151
7.9%
90
96
5.8%
Rail
23
28
21.7%
45
53
17.8%
47
50
6.4%
Bus
37
38
2.7%
95
97
2.1%
42
44
4.8%
Total
492
571
16.1%
917
1031
12.4%
966
1075
11.3%
Rail
274
341
24.5%
339
407
20.2%
638
713
11.8%
Bus
217
228
5.3%
557
620
7.5%
319
349
9.3%
Public transport boardings per person:
Passenger kilometers per person:
European Cities
Singapore/Hong Kong
Variable
1995
2005
Change
1995
2005
Change
Total rail seat kilometers per person
3594
4718
31.3%
1146
1480
29.1%
Total bus seat kilometers per person
1972
2157
9.4%
5468
5691
4.1%
Total
304
332
9.2%
477
450
−5.7%
Rail
183
202
10.4%
152
169
11.2%
Bus
120
129
7.5%
319
277
−13.2%
Total
1744
2028
16.3%
3169
3786
19.5%
Rail
1204
1445
20.0%
1286
1704
32.5%
Bus
533
576
8.2%
1826
2055
12.6%
Public transport boardings per person:
Passenger kilometers per person:
groupings. These data are standardized and comparable
in population terms and are systematically collected from
transit authorities on a consistent basis.
The data show that in all groups of cities there is a
very stark difference between rail and bus, with rail
leading the transit revival in each group. Rail seat kilometers per capita have risen much more compared to
buses (in Australian and Canadian cities bus service per
capita even declined). Likewise, urban rail and bus usage
per capita are dramatically contrasted, with urban rail
boardings and passenger kilometers showing rather large
increases in each group compared to buses and in Singapore/Hong Kong bus boardings even declined.
The above data should be seen with the data on car use
that were summarized in [5] and showed an overall
growth of just 5% in the world’s cities over the decade
from 1995 to 2005, after previous growth of 23%, 26%
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
and 42% in the 80’s, 70’s and 60’s, respectively.
The observed dramatic peak in car use and subsequent
declines are consistent with the above trends over many
decades. Before describing the probable causes of these
parallel rail and car trends, various other rail trends will
be examined across an even wider array of cities, first in
dense European, Asian and Middle Eastern cities, then in
low density American and Australian cities. By taking
these trends in a less structured way than the Global Cities Database (above), we are able to examine more recent
patterns that coincide with the current phenomenon of
peak car use that has accelerated since 2005.
2. Emerging Rail Trends in Dense Cities of
Europe, Asia and the Middle East
This section presents a wide range of data, which collectively demonstrate that urban rail is experiencing a surge
JTTs
P. NEWMAN
274
of popularity that is perhaps unparalleled since its golden
age in the 19th and first half of the 20th century.
The form of the data presented in this section varies.
Although some data are raw and unadjusted for the effects of population growth, system expansion and increases in rail service levels, and therefore can be criticized for this, such increases in the availability of rail
systems are themselves part of the current ascendency of
rail in cities and therefore integral to the argument in the
paper. In short, rail systems are being expanded, they are
increasing their service levels and they are being better
utilized, which is the essence of the paper.
2.1. European Trends
In Europe most cities were built around suburban rail
systems, which have been retained, though many removed their tram systems in the 1950’s and 60’s. So the
revival of light rail has been a major addition to rail in
most European cities. No less than 65 cities built new or
expanded light rail systems between 1980 and 2007,
bringing the total number of European cities with light
rail at that time to over 160 (see Table 2). Further growth
in light rail has continued since then, particularly in
France, Spain and Portugal.
Table 2 understates the extent of trams. Switzerland
has at a minimum five cities with these modes.
In a 2003 review of the trend to light rail in Europe,
the following conclusions were made:
“The trend toward constructing new light rail systems,
which had its genesis in France and has continued at a
high level in that country, has generally spread throughout Western Europe and the British Isles. Light rail conTable 2. Selected European countries with Light Rail systems (2007) [7].
Country
Cities
Net
(km)
Country
Cities
Net
(km)
Belgium
5
332
Poland
14
1445
Germany
56
2768
Portugal
2
65
France
11
202
Romania
14
461
United
Kingdom
7
156
Sweden
3
186
Italy
7
209
Switzerland
2
112
Croatia
2
57
Slovakia
3
68
The
Netherlands
5
280
Spain
4
206
Norway
2
47
Czech
Republic
7
333
Austria
6
313
Turkey
5
66
Hungary
4
188
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
ET AL.
tinues to be implemented in progressively smaller cities
than previously noted with cities having populations as
low as 150,000 choosing to make significant long-term
capital investments in fixed rail facilities (and willing to
tax themselves to do so),” [8].
In addition, new and expanded metro rail systems have
also been added or are under construction in many of the
larger European cities, such as Paris, Madrid, Athens,
London, Vienna, Stockholm, Munich and Frankfurt. For
example, London is currently building Crossrail—Europe’s largest construction project—while Paris is completing an orbital metro to complement the extensive upgrades made to the radial metro and Réseau Express Régional (Regional Express Network (RER)) line networks.
Europe has also rapidly expanded its network of highspeed rail lines for intercity travel, with extensive networks in France, Germany, Spain and Italy, and new
lines planned or under construction in the UK, France,
Turkey, Sweden and other countries. By 2016 it should
be possible to travel direct from Frankfurt to London on
a German Inter-City Express (ICE) in less total time than
it would take to make the journey by plane, allowing for
travel to and from airports and waiting time in terminals
[9] This question of travel time has been a major factor in
determining travel choices for centuries and further data
on the continuing importance of this factor will be returned to later.
2.2. Middle East
In the Middle East a large expansion of rail systems is
underway. For example:
1) In Qatar, a four line metro network is about to start
construction in Doha, with the first section to be completed by 2018, while additional rail projects include an
LRT line, the West Bay People Mover system, and a
planned high-speed rail network linking Doha airport,
Doha town center and Bahrain.
2) In Saudi Arabia, bidding is underway for construction of a metro network for Riyadh, eventually planned
to include six lines totaling 175 km. The Haramain highspeed rail line will be the region’s first when opened in
2014. Approval has also been given recently for a major
metro system for Makkah, with a planned length of 182
km.
3) In Dubai, a 76 km metro is currently open with a
plan for 108 km and an integrated light rail and bus system is partly completed. The LRT is under construction
and buses are integrated at many stations.
4) Other metros are planned for Kuwait where a 69station system with three lines is due for completion by
2020.
5) A 131 km metro system in Abu Dhabi is forecasted
for completion some time in 2015.
6) A pan-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) interlinkJTTs
P. NEWMAN
ing rail system is planned, with a current projected cost
of about $30 billion. This network will include the first
rail line linking all the GCC member states [10]. Congestion on road systems joining different Emirates is now
legendary (e.g. from Dubai to Sharjah) and is one reason
why Abu Dhabi has introduced a new law that to work in
Abu Dhabi one must now be a resident. Dubai is set to do
the same. The pan-GCC rail system is also meant to help
address the problem.
2.3. Asia
The rapid pace of urbanization across Asia has seen major growth in population for numerous cities. Coupled
with rising incomes, this has led to an explosive growth
of cars and motorcycles and a decline in the use of bicycles and small vehicles. The densities of most Asian cities means that mass transit systems will need to handle
an increasing share of traffic in response to congestion
levels, and a large number of cities have responded with
what is the biggest rail boom since the original railway
age in the late 19th century in Europe and America. For
example:
1) Singapore has built a highly efficient mass transit
system encompassing metros and automated light rail
feeders, complemented by buses, and carefully integrated
with land use planning with major developments concentrated on the rail network.
2) Hong Kong has also built a major, high capacity
and modern metro network including a high-speed metro
line to the new airport. It has also built a successful LRT
system in the New Territories.
3) Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Manila, Delhi, Kolkata,
Mumbai, Seoul and other major Asian cities have added
a variety of rail-based systems including above ground
metros or monorails, underground metros and light rail
systems.
4) India is building metros in sixteen cities.
5) China has seen the largest expansion. Shanghai has
built some thirteen metro lines in the last two decades
and now has one of the world’s largest systems. Eightytwo Chinese cities are now building metros. Dozens of
cities have added light rail. China has also built the
world’s largest high-speed rail network in the last fifteen
years, adding to the networks in countries such as Japan,
Korea and Taiwan.
What is clear from the above trends is that there appear to be multiple advantages being found from the development of rail in the world’s denser cities in Europe,
Asia and the Middle East. At the large end, megacities
are building metros with their ability to manage high
capacity mobility in narrow spaces, and at the other end
small cities are building light rail systems at city sizes
that previously were not seen to be viable. All of them
are significantly faster than the traffic congested streets
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
ET AL.
275
of these rapidly growing cities.
3. Emerging Rail Trends in Low Density
Car-Dependent Cities
The trend back to rail is perhaps to be expected in the
relatively dense cities and countries in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. However, perhaps the more surprising
trends have been in the US, Canada and Australia where
traditional car dependent cities that were once only considered suitable for bus transit in their suburbs, are now
seeing a future based around rail.
In particular, light rail is emerging as the core of the
mass transit system in the medium size but relatively low
density cities in the US, Canada and Australia, such as
Portland (Oregon, USA), Edmonton and Calgary (Alberta, Canada) and the Gold Coast (Queensland, Australia). Ottawa has recently announced a rail system in this
traditionally bus-only city. In larger and higher density
cities such as San Francisco, Toronto and Sydney, light
rail is emerging as a secondary system to support heavy
rail/metro systems, and is particularly suited to shorter
distance radial corridors in inner suburbs, to circumferential or ring routes, or to radial corridors to secondary
centres.
3.1. United States
There has been a significant resurgence in mass transit in
the United States, with patronage as estimated by APTA
(The American Public Transportation Association) now
23% higher than in 1993, and growing faster than car
usage. The growth has been particularly strong since
about 2003, and has continued since 2008 despite the
significant economic downturn in the US since the global
financial crisis, which has resulted in declining economic
growth, increasing unemployment and significant financial pressures on urban transit systems.
However, it is interesting that all of the growth in patronage since 1993 has been on rail-based modes (heavy
rail, commuter rail, light rail). In contrast total patronage
on bus-based modes (bus, trolleybus, demand-responsive)
has been essentially static in terms of overall patronage
(see Figure 1).
As shown in Figure 2, light rail has had the fastest
growth rate of any mode, almost tripling patronage between 1993 and 2011, though from a low base.
As a result of the differential in growth rates, rail
modes have increased their shares of total patronage,
particularly heavy rail (from about 25% to 35% of the
total), while the bus share has significantly declined from
65% to 50%. The issue of bus failure is addressed by
[12]. Here they confront the widespread failure of cities
to implement effective congestion measures and provide
bus operating environments that can enable buses to beat
JTTs
276
P. NEWMAN
the traffic instead of being a victim of it, thus also growing their patronage as an effective transportation option
for mid-level loads.
The patronage on light rail has increased rapidly from
a relatively small base of 168 million to 481 million over
the same period, passing the patronage on commuter rail
(which has also increased relatively rapidly). The number
of light rail systems in the US has grown from fifteen in
1995 to twenty-nine currently.
Figure 3 breaks the above data into three groups:
1) The “Legacy” systems—cities which kept at least
part of their original tram/light rail systems, and subsequently built on these (this includes cities such as Baltimore, Boston, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Cleveland and
Buffalo).
2) Those cities in the early wave of new systems, with
their first lines opening by 1990 (this includes cities such
as San Diego, Portland, Pittsburgh, San Jose, Sacramento
and Los Angeles).
3) Those cities opening their first light rail lines since
1990—this includes cities such as St Louis, Denver, Dallas, Seattle and Salt Lake City.
As can be seen, the cities with “Legacy” systems had
roughly static patronage until 2004, but patronage has
grown around 25% since. Those cities which had opened
new light rail systems by 1990 saw more than a doubling
of patronage since, while further growth has come from
the expanding number of cities with light rail, as well as
expansion of networks already established.
The cities with the fastest growth in light rail patronage are Portland, Los Angeles and Newark with first
quarter patronage from 1996 to 2012 shown in Figure 4.
ET AL.
Looking at trends in patronage by mode for specific
cities, the graph below shows trends for Portland, Oregon,
which has had one of the fastest growth patterns in overall public transit use. As is apparent, essentially all the
growth in patronage has occurred on light rail, with bus
volumes static (see Figure 5).
The implementation of LRT in Portland in 1986 and
the later addition of a Streetcar system, especially through
the revitalized Pearl District, were accompanied by dramatic improvements in Downtown and near city street
environments with the conversion of parking lots to
squares, new farmers’ markets, the widening of sidewalks, introduction of high quality street furniture and
artwork and a revival of downtown residential development.
These accompanying changes were part of the reason for
Figure 1. Annual patronage by bus-based and rail-based
transit systems in the USA 1993-2011 [Authors’ Own Graphic based on data from [11]].
Figure 2. Percentage changes in patronage of transit modes in the USA, 1993-2011 [Authors’ Own Graphic based on data
from [11]].
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
JTTs
P. NEWMAN
ET AL.
277
“new world” cities in Canada and Australia, which have
historically been heavily car dependent but which are
now investing significantly in rail-based (and in some
cases bus-based) public transit systems.
3.2. Australian Trends
Figure 3. Different types of US light rail systems & their
patronage, 1996-2012 [Authors’ Own Graphic based on
data from [11]].
Figure 4. Patronage of LRT in Portland, Los Angeles and
Newark, 1996-2012 [Authors’ Own Graphic based on data
from [11]].
the patronage boost shown in Figure 5. People rediscovered their central city and pre-automobile inner areas
using a convenient public transit option. The experience
of Portland has thus shown another important qualitative
aspect of LRT—it gives the opportunity to radically
change the dynamics of street use in favor of pedestrians
and cyclists and can be part of a process involving a major upgrading of urban design and livability in the neighborhoods it serves [13,14].
Overall, the patronage data from US cities reinforces
the growing role of public transit, especially rail-based
modes, in handling the urban transportation task in the
United States, although overall travel remains heavily car
dominated. It also suggests that there is likely to be further strong growth in public transit patronage in the future as there are still significant investments occurring in
many cities, ranging from upgrades to the metros in New
York and Chicago, to significant expansions of light rail
and other systems in cities from Los Angeles to Houston.
It is noteworthy that many of these are continuing to gain
voter support, notwithstanding the difficult financial situation facing many city and state governments.
Similar patronage trends are also apparent in other
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
There has also been a revival in public transit patronage
generally in Australian cities since the turn of the century,
which is consistent with the other global data. Patronage
is growing faster than car usage in virtually every major
city in Australia, and car usage per capita is now falling
in many cities [15]. Figure 6 summarises the trend in
transit patronage in Australian cities.
The growth in transit patronage has occurred for all
modes, but with the highest growth in suburban rail in
Perth, suburban and light rail growth in Melbourne and
suburban rail and bus use in Brisbane. The contrast between Perth and Adelaide in terms of the rail themes is
striking and is due to the opening of the 74 km southern
rail line in Perth in December 2007, compared to a stagnant rail network in Adelaide. This is examined in more
detail in Figure 7.
This reflects similar trends to those occurring in the
United States, where urban sprawl has slowed, densities
in inner areas are now increasing, and travel behavior has
begun shifting from cars to public and active transportation modes. Hence the future is not likely to be a linear
extrapolation of the post-war period, which for fifty years
saw declines in transit and rapid rises in car use. Another
sign of the change has been the financial failure of recent
toll roads, including the Cross City and Lane Cove Tunnels in Sydney, and the Clem 7 tunnel in Brisbane, with
early signs that the Airport Road Tunnel in Brisbane is
also experiencing much lower traffic than forecast [16].
Governments are beginning to respond to this shift
through moves to enhance transit, with Infrastructure
Australia providing over half their funds to urban rail in
an historic intervention by the Federal Government. State
Governments have generally hedged their bets with plans
for major new railways and new motorways but this is a
big change from previous decades where highways dominated funding.
1) In Sydney, the Draft Transport Master plan has
committed the Government to two major heavy rail extensions—the South West and North West Rail links, and
to extensions of the small light rail system into the inner
west, Central Business District (CBD) and south-eastern
suburbs. In addition, a second harbor rail crossing has
also been included in the plan, though as yet the funding,
timetable and design are not yet clear. Light rail lines in
Western Sydney, based on Parramatta, are also under
investigation. The heavy rail fleet is being updated and
expanded, and a new approach promises much closer
integration between rail, bus, ferry and light rail modes.
JTTs
278
P. NEWMAN
ET AL.
Figure 5. Patronage of LRT and buses in Portland, Oregon, 1996-2012 [Authors’ Own Graphic based on data from [1]].
Figure 6. Per capita public transit travel (passenger kilometres) in Australian cities, 1976-2009 [Authors’ Own Graphic based on data from [15] and Australian Bureau of Statistics population data for each city and year].
2) In Melbourne there have been incremental extensions to the heavy and light rail systems, some additional
trains and trams, and improved bus services in the outer
suburbs. However, the improvements have not kept up
with the rapid growth in demand, and there have been
significant complaints as to the reliability and quality of
services. Planning is continuing for a new heavy rail line
through the CBD to provide additional capacity, with a
$4 billion price tag.
3) In Perth the rail system has been significantly expanded with the South-West Rail Line of some 74 km,
which opened in 2007, extensions on the Joondalup line,
which opened initially in 1993, and increased rolling
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
stock to cope with much higher than expected demand.
The original system (three lines) was electrified in 1991,
thus also increasing its operating speed significantly.
However, rolling stock has just kept pace with the very
rapid growth in demand, which has seen rail patronage
increase dramatically, (see Figure 7). The government
has, however, also announced a start on a $1 billion light
rail network for the CBD and inner suburbs, which will
help to handle demand from these areas and support
more sustainable land use patterns. Figure 7 also shows
how rail can stagnate when it is based on a slow diesel
service with no expansion, as has been the case in Adelaide until now.
4) In Brisbane, there have been some extensions to the
rail network (the Gold Coast line and the Springfield line)
with more extensions agreed (to Redcliff and potentially
the Sunshine Coast). There has also been significant expenditure on a busway network, including an underground link through the CBD for buses, necessitated by
the volumes of buses entering the city. Planning for a
major new rail line through the CBD—the Cross River
Rail link—has been finalized, but as in Sydney, no funding or timetable has been announced.
5) In Adelaide, the light rail system has been extended
and the heavy rail system is being electrified, although
the speed of the program has been cut back recently.
6) In the Gold Coast a $1 billion light rail line is under
construction, which will form the beginning of the mass
transit system through this high density coastal strip.
JTTs
P. NEWMAN
ET AL.
279
60,000
50,000
40,000
Adelaide
30,000
Perth
20,000
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
0
1989
10,000
1988
iANNUAL RAIL BOARDINGS ('000s: Train and Tram)
70,000
YEAR
Figure 7. Annual rail boardings in Perth and Adelaide, 1988 to 2011. [Authors’ Own Graphic compiled from Annual reports
of the rail operators in Perth and Adelaide].
7) In Canberra plans for light rail are progressing,
though the funding situation remains unresolved. Similar
concept plans are under discussion in Hobart, Darwin,
Newcastle, Cairns and other smaller cities.
The overall picture is thus continuing the pattern of
increased focus on rail systems. Governments in all
States and of all political persuasions are recognizing the
crucial need to further upgrade, expand and extend Australian urban rail systems. There seems to be a global
shift in the urban paradigm that is setting in.
4. What Is behind the Trends in Urban Car
and Rail Use?
The one hundred year growth in the use of the automobile in cities appears to have plateaued and then declined
across the world’s developed cities [5,17,18]. This set in
before the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and is approaching a decade with little sign of change. Indeed a
report by [19] on young people in the USA shows that
amongst the age group from 16 to 34 years old there was
a decrease in car use between 2001 and 2009 from
10,300 miles to 7900 miles per capita—a 23% decline.
At the same time, use of transit went up 100%, walking
37% and biking 122%. These are remarkable numbers
and suggest a much deeper transition is happening than
simple supply and demand based on previous elasticities.
It suggests a combination of factors that are synergizing a
major change and the rail growth data are reflecting this
as well.
The change in car use in developed cities occurred simultaneously in 2004 when oil reached US $80 per barCopyright © 2013 SciRes.
rel. From a plateau, car use then dropped significantly
when oil reached $140 per barrel in 2008 and propelled
the world’s cities into the GFC. Australian cities were
buffered from much of the GFC due to a combination of
quick action by the government, well-regulated banks
and China’s continuing demand for resources. Nevertheless, a significant decline in car use per capita continued
from 2004 onwards. Figure 8 shows the per capita annual private passenger kilometers (driver and passengers)
in each of the major Australian cities. Those Australian
cities that provided new rail infrastructure grew substantially in transit, and those that did not remained static—
(see Figure 7).
Such data suggest that supply of rail options and demand reductions in car use due to fuel prices, are likely
to be part of the mix of explanations for peak car use.
It is possible to see similar data on many countries
worldwide. Reference [17] provides a comprehensive examination of a number of nations’ time series of car use,
which demonstrates a similar peaking. The advantage of
the Australian data here is that it is for cities rather than
the whole nation and is drawn from the very long running Australian Bureau of Statistics Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, something which few other countries can draw
on.
It is also possible to see two other structural matters
that are likely to be part of this global phenomenon. One
is that the structure of cities began reaching a limit to car
use growth and the other that urban culture and economy
began to change to support this process. Both suggest
that a more fundamental shift in urban activity is unfolding.
JTTs
280
P. NEWMAN
Figure 8. Per capita private passenger kilometers of travel
in Australian cities (car, light commercials and motorcycles), by city, 1976-2009 [Authors’ Own Graphic based on
data from [15] and Australian Bureau of Statistics population data for each city and year].
4.1. Urban Structural Limits and Travel Time
Cities are structured around their transportation priorities.
Traditional walking cities were structured around walking and expanded little beyond a half hour radius or one
hour diameter (5 km), so that at walking speeds all destinations could be reached. Transit Cities extended this
one hour diameter to 20 km or so and Automobile Cities
extended this to 50km or so [20]. All cities have combinations of these three city types because most retain
dense centres that still function as walking cities and
many still have rail-based suburbs built around rail stations before cars became dominant. Some like Stockholm
developed their transit-based urban form from the 1950s
onwards [21]. The last 80 years has seen the growth in
transportation mostly around the Automobile City and
the old Walking and Transit City components have been
reasonably static as car use was a quicker and more convenient option. However, in the past decade it would
appear that the Automobile City has reached its limits
and a new type of city is emerging with a different structure. This can be seen by examining the trends in average
speeds for car use compared to rail-based transit (see
Figure 9 and Table 3).
Despite the difference in city types around the world it
seems that the 21st century is the period during which the
limits on global car-based urban growth have happened.
This will be explained by referring to the two groups of
cities outlined above: the denser cities of Europe, the
Middle East and Asia, and the low density cities of
America and Australia.
The approach taken is built on the above urban fabric
theory of travel time budgets and transportation modes
developed in [20] and the new data from the Global Cities Study which shows that traffic speeds have stabilized
in the world’s cities [6,22].
General traffic in the world’s cities averages 34 km/h,
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
ET AL.
Figure 9. The relationship between overall transit system
speed and heavy rail system speed in cities compared to
their general road traffic speed, 1960 to 2005 [Authors’
Own Graphic].
with dense cities in Europe around 30 km/h and Asia
around 20 to 30 km/h; low density cities in America and
Australia are around 45 to 50 km/h. The global average
speed of buses is 19 km/h, with most cities unable to get
much above this, though some do manage to push 30
km/h where good bus lanes exist on much of the system
(e.g. in Hamburg). Rail systems vary considerably, but
metros average around the general road traffic speed of
34 km/h and suburban rail averages 43 km/h. Perth’s new
rail line to the south averages 88 km/h and most new rail
systems outlined above are seeking this competitive edge
over car-based congestion. These differences in relative
speeds have been known in cities for decades, however
this paper can now reveal new data that shows the trends
in relative speeds. The data have been processed from all
the previous publications of the Global Cities Database
[22,23]and from recent unpublished data (e.g. [6]) and
have been put on the same basis for comparison: the
average speeds of transit systems are weighted carefully
on the basis of passenger hours of travel by each mode.
Where more than one rail system is involved in any city,
the rail speed is also weighted the same way. The data
used here have been collected since the 1980s for a large
sample of world cities, for as far back as 1960. The methodologies and uses of the data are explained in the
above mentioned references and others such as [24].
The most significant trend to help explain the decline
in car use and the increase in rail is that the world’s cities
all showed a plateau or an increase in the ratio of transit
to traffic speeds, when tracked over the period from 1960
to 2005 (see Table 3).
Figure 9 shows these data averaged across the globe
for American, Canadian, Australian, European and Asian
cities. Although these data are only up to 2005 and car
use peaking seems to be centered around 2004 in many
places, it can be postulated that the process involved is
JTTs
P. NEWMAN
ET AL.
281
Table 3. Ratio of overall average transit system and heavy rail speed to general road traffic speed in cities in different regions,
1960 to 2005 [Authors’ Own Data].
COMPARATIVE SPEEDS IN GLOBAL CITIES
1960
1970
1980
1990
1995
2005
American Cities
0.46
0.48
0.55
0.50
0.55
0.54
Canadian Cities
0.54
0.54
0.52
0.58
0.56
0.55
Australian Cities
0.56
0.56
0.63
0.64
0.75
0.75
European Cities
0.72
0.70
0.82
0.91
0.81
0.90
Asian Cities
-
0.77
0.84
0.79
0.86
0.86
Global Average for all cities
0.55
0.58
0.66
0.66
0.71
0.70
American Cities
-
0.93
0.99
0.89
0.96
0.95
Canadian Cities
-
-
0.73
0.92
0.85
0.89
Australian Cities
0.72
0.68
0.89
0.81
1.06
1.08
European Cities
1.07
0.80
1.22
1.25
1.15
1.28
Asian Cities
-
1.40
1.53
1.60
1.54
1.52
Global Average for all cities
0.88
1.05
1.07
1.11
1.12
1.13
Ratio of overall public transport speed to road speed
Ratio of metro/suburban rain speed to road speed
likely related to a tipping point involving a gradual
change in the relative competitiveness of transit versus
cars, which reaches a critical point and then cascades
[25]. Of course we are not arguing that this factor is the
only one involved in peak car use, so there are cumulative factors involved in reaching such a tipping point.
Table 3 and Figure 9 also highlight another critical factor in the argument put forward in this paper, by showing
the ratio of metro/suburban rail speeds (trams and LRT
excluded) in each group of cities compared to the average general road traffic speed for the same cities (i.e.
only those cities which have the rail systems).
It should be noted that both car and transit speeds are
based upon kerb-to-kerb or “in-vehicle” travel times, not
door-to-door travel times. In this sense the relative speed
between transit and cars may be overstated for some trips
and understated for others. Higher urban density can do
much to shorten access distances and times required before a transit vehicle is boarded. In addition, where transit frequencies are very high, such as in Japanese subway
systems where peak period headways can be as short as
90 seconds, or even in, for example, the Skytrain in
Vancouver where peak frequencies along significant sections are 2 to 4 minutes, waiting times can be very much
reduced. Likewise, cars are not without access times,
depending on the nature of the origin and destination of
the trip and where parking is to be found. As a rule, transit is most competitive in speed for trips to centers or
major events, which act as temporal centers. In these
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
situations parking is generally most limited and therefore
is least convenient for car users, due to cost and also the
walking distance from a car park to a final destination.
It can clearly be seen that while globally, for the cities
analyzed here, the ratio of overall transit system speed
compared to general road traffic has increased from 0.55
to 0.70 between 1960 and 2005, the ratio of rail system
speed to general road traffic has gone from rail being
slower than cars in 1960 (0.88) to a situation in 2005
where rail was on average faster (1.13). This trend has
experienced a steady increase (see Figure 9). Note that
the data in Table 3 represent the same city pairs within
each year group. From 1960 to 2005 the amount of data
increased considerably, so there is a general increase
across the table in the number of cities involved in each
year.
Within the regions it can also be seen that even today
in American and Canadian cities, transit overall is barely
half as fast as general traffic speed, whereas their rail
systems are about 90% to 95% as fast, meaning that in
many cases they are competitive with the car, especially
into dense urban centers where clogged highways are
losing out to fast rail systems time and again. Australian
cities do a little better with transit overall now being only
about 25% slower than cars, while the rail systems are
now on average about 8% faster and have generally been
improving their competitive position since the 1960s and
1970s. When major corridors into city centers are considered, the rail systems are at a clear advantage.
JTTs
282
P. NEWMAN
European cities have mostly always had quite competitive rail systems in terms of speed, but they have hit a
high in this 45-year perspective by reaching an average
of 28% faster than cars. Indeed, their overall transit systems, as a result of their fast rail systems, are on average
90% as fast as the car. It is interesting to note, however,
that their rail relative speed dropped from 1.07 to 0.80
during the 1960s when they opened up to the car and
built a lot of roads. A similar thing can be seen in Australian cities, but after that, rail speeds relative to the car
rose quite consistently.
Asian cities have very fast rail systems compared to
their crowded road systems, where in 2005 rail speeds
were some 52% higher. This has fluctuated somewhat
over the decades, but rail speeds on average were never
less than 40% better than cars, even in the 1970s. Such
data give hope to the many emerging cities struggling
with the car that rail systems can help them to develop a
very different kind of overall urban transportation system
that is not so overwhelmed by the automobile. In the
emerging cities traffic speeds were very slow (around the
low 20’s km/h) and bus speeds always slower than this.
Bangkok had a traffic speed of 14 km/h and a bus speed
of 9 km/h. Thus as these emerging cities build rail (often
above or below the traffic) the data will be reflected in
dramatic transit speed improvements.
The data also highlight the fact that it is bus systems
(as well as tram and LRT systems that are not operating
on dedicated rights-of-way), which are dragging the
speed performance of transit down. However, it also
must be recognized that buses operate in nearly all cities
under intolerable congestion levels that are permitted to
continue by not controlling congestion through economic
and physical means. It is not the case that buses cannot
compete with cars in speed terms in all circumstances,
but they will continue to struggle while congestion remains unchecked [12].
4.1.1. Dense Urban Form Cities
European, Asian and Middle Eastern cities did not begin
to grow with the car until well after the new world cities
of America and Australia and in the case of UAE cities,
only in the last 30 years or so. They remained mostly
based around their old Walking and Transit City urban
form and have had much less car-based urban sprawl.
Car ownership continued to grow until recently, although
much more slowly than in the past, and is now showing
signs of a plateau as the streets have filled and other options have been pursued, as set out in this paper. Five
major Canadian cities on average declined in car ownership between 1996 and 2006. In addition to the options
discussed later, car ownership is also being increasingly
impacted by car sharing, especially in European cities
(e.g. Bremen). Car companies such as Daimler Benz and
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
ET AL.
BMW have also established their own “instant car access” systems in some cities (Car2Go and Drive Now
respectively). European cities historically have led the
way to calm traffic and build extensive cycle-way and
transit options as the public chose not to build so many
large freeways or to facilitate car use anything like the
cities of the new world. Thus peaking of car use and
growth of rail has occurred because average traffic speeds
have generally stopped growing.
The emerging cities of Asia and the Middle East have
had a much shorter period to reach their limits on car use,
but perhaps are bound to do so, sooner as they are so
much denser and the streets have so much less capacity
to enable car use growth. They also have hit the wall on
their average traffic speeds.
Data on the use of cars in the emerging cities of China
and India and the Middle East are not easy to obtain,
though car ownership data are known. Most projections
of car use suggest that major global growth in car use
will occur in these cities. However, it may be that the
growth in car ownership will not be reflected in the same
trend upwards as has been seen in the developed world.
The urban fabric of dense Asian cities is such that little
space for car use exists. For example, in Singapore,
which directly controls car ownership growth through
economic imposts, precisely because of its limited ability
to accommodate cars, car ownership in 1995 was a meager 99 cars per 1000 persons and in 2005 it was 100. In
Hong Kong likewise, where cars are not controlled so
tightly using economic means, still car ownership only
rose from a tiny 47 to 57 cars per 1000 persons, a remarkably low car ownership number when compared to
any city in the world today, especially a relatively affluent one [6].
The remarkable growth in urban rail in China and India suggests that these cities may have hit the wall much
sooner than occurred in European cities and certainly far
sooner than American cities. Daily experience of the
streets in these cities suggests that the old Walking and
Transit City urban fabric is saturated with cars and from
here on the growth will largely plateau. Of course these
cities too are capable of sprawling, as evidenced in Beijing, but the “sprawl” is denser than in the USA or Australia and it is simply not physically possible to turn a
dense Asian city into an American city without demolishing the whole thing and starting again. Sprawling carbased suburbs of the very low density found in Australia
and the USA are rare in China and India and land constraints, including unsustainable destruction of essential
food growing areas, are likely to mean they will largely
grow based on Walking and Transit forms.
Based on this analysis, European levels of car use
would be the most that would be expected in China and
India, more probably to around half the levels of where
JTTs
P. NEWMAN
car use plateaued in Europe. Recent announcements in
India have suggested that this is the kind of plateau in car
use that they are seeking as traffic congestion has far outreached acceptable levels and new rail systems are planned
to enable better access [26].
ET AL.
283
land use change that follow when people switch from car
use [23,27].
The second perspective on this issue is provided by an
understanding of urban economy and culture.
4.2. Urban Economic and Cultural Change
4.1.2. Low Density Cities
The cities of America and Australia grew mostly in the
Automobile City era and as a result are much lower in
density (by a factor of ten usually). Thus the space for
car use is much more available. Car ownership and car
use grew to a much higher level but is now plateauing
and declining. They seem to have hit the same wall as the
denser cities, but at a much higher level of car ownership
and use. However, they have also reached a limit on the
growth of freeways and other urban space for cars (e.g.
parking is being restricted heavily in most developed
cities) and hence average traffic speeds have plateaued or
reduced.
The nineteen lower density cities in Australia (4 cities),
the USA (10 cities) and Canada (5 cities) for which we
have 1995-6 and 2005-6 average road traffic speed data
(24 hour/7 days per week), show an overall average road
traffic speed in 1995 of 46.8 km/h and 47.4 km/h in 2005.
In terms of the regional averages, Australian cities in
1995 averaged 43.6 km/ and declined to 42.8 km/h, the
Canadian cities rose slightly from 44.5 km/h and 45.4
km/h respectively, and the US sample was similar (49.3
km/h and 50.4 km/h).
In terms of parking, between 1995 and 2005 parking
supply per 1000 CBD jobs in a large sample of cities
mostly declined. US cities went from 555 to 487 parking
spaces per 1000 CBD jobs, Canadian 390 to 319, Australian 367 to 298 and Singapore and Hong Kong declined
too from 136 to 121 parking spaces per 1000 CBD jobs.
In European cities, CBD parking rose a fraction from 224
to 241, but this was largely because of an unavoidable
expansion of the definition of the CBD in Berlin which
increased the apparent CBD parking supply in that city
[6].
Thus the same mechanism can be understood to have
set in over the past decade: the urban structure or fabric
of the city has prevented any further growth in car use,
congestion has remained totally uncontrolled, and the
only way forward was with alternative transportation,
especially urban rail.
The relationship between car use and transit is exponential and thus relatively small increases in transit can
lead to significant reductions in car use. This is explained
by the concept of “transit leverage” which shows that one
extra passenger kilometer by transit substitutes for multiple car passenger kilometers (generally in the range of 3
to 9), mainly through the trip chaining that transit users
do on their journeys as well as the behavioral change and
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
The biggest change in the economy during the period
leading up to and including the period of car use decline
and rail growth has been the digital transformation and
the consequent knowledge/service economy. Despite this
being global and enabling long distance communication,
it has in fact been a concentrating force in terms of city
structure and fabric. We provided new data on global
cities [5] that showed a universal increase in density in
the past decade or so after over one hundred years of
decline. The knowledge economy and digital jobs are
focused in city centers, as these are where the creative
synergies between people occur [28]. Old CBD’s have
been transformed back into functional Walking Cities
and, those which have done this best, have attracted the
most capital and young talent to work there [13,29].
Other centers have also done similar transformations and
the linkages between them have become the basis for the
revival of the Transit City. Universities, health campuses
and IT job clusters have created their own centers for
jobs and have attracted housing and transit to link them
together.
Other parts of the economy such as manufacturing,
small and large industry, freight transportation and storage, have remained car-based and are outside this new
knowledge economy. They will remain so but they are
also not where the growth in jobs or the growth in wealth
is happening. Thus the Automobile City economy and
culture has become somewhat distinct from the new regenerated urban economy of knowledge/services and its
basis in Walking and Transit City urban fabric.
If the Automobile-based economy had continued to
scatter land use and economic function, it would not have
been possible for the rise in rail to occur. Rail needs focused activity and that is now happening in rapidly accelerating ways. Thus the urban structural change and the
value of time saved by rail outstripping cars in the journey to knowledge-based centers, are obviously closely
linked.
As with many economic changes, there is also a cultural dimension to this change that perhaps explains the
rapidity of the changes observed above, as well as the
demographic complexion of the change. Young people
(especially those involved in knowledge economy jobs)
are moving to reduce their car use and switch to alternative transportation faster than any other group. This has
been recognized by a few commentators and related to
the use of social media devices [30]. On transit or walkJTTs
284
P. NEWMAN
ing (and even to an extent while biking) young people
are already connected by their smart technology phones
and tablets. They are hardly usable while driving a car.
Reference [19] shows that the mobile phone is a far more
important device than a car for younger people. This is a
cultural revolution that partly underlies the rail revolution.
Baby-boomers gained freedom and connection with a car,
Gen Y’s are not needing one. They like to save time on a
fast train, but they also like to use the time constructively
relating to their friends and work.
The other expression of this change is that younger
people are moving to live in the Walking City or Transit
City as these locations more readily enable them to express the kind of urban experience and culture to which
they aspire [30]. Thus they feed the market that enables
the rail revival and city center renewal to continue.
The rise and rise of rail (as well as the demise of car
dependence) can be explained by a combination of urban
structural limits together with urban cultural and economic change that together enable us to see a different
kind of urban future emerging. Cities that are responding
to the powerful new agenda for building rail systems can
enable this new, less car dependent city to emerge. However, if a city does not adequately develop or build the
rail infrastructure then it can easily miss out on this important social and economic change. The biggest threat is
if car dependent cities do not recognize that the golden
age of the car is over. Some suggestions are therefore
provided as an end to this paper about how to capitalize
on this proven rail revival and how to better facilitate it
in both large and small car dependent cities.
5. What Can Be Done to Make Rail Work
Better in Large Car Dependent Cities?
There are a few emerging trends in best practice for rail
that can enable large car dependent cities to capitalize on
the opportunities that are now presented by this global
new world.
1) Integration of modes. The most obvious impact of
rail is when it is properly integrated with bus feed-in to
enable a broad catchment to be served. This is particularly evident in car dependent cities, which cannot be
served by just walk-on passengers. This requires ticket
integration as well as fast and convenient transfer systems. Perth’s Southern Rail illustrates this well with
some 80% of the system usage being from bus transfers
and only a very small percentage from Park and Ride,
despite generous Park and Ride provision [31]. Bus rightof-way into stations is a critical part of enabling this integration. Of course, integration with bicycles is also an
opportunity that offers huge rewards, as evidenced by
looking at the surroundings of any Dutch or Danish railway station, or even the new, specially designed secure
bike parking areas around Sao Paulo’s commuter rail
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
ET AL.
system or those in Seoul.
2) Integration of land use. Rail will work better if
there is a chance to redevelop land use around the stations in order to enable more people to have easy access.
Measuring this potential and making it part of the planning process seems to be an emerging standard practice
[32,33]. Where Park and Ride is needed, it should be
integrated with such attractive higher density, mixed use
development and not as vast swathes of bitumen, which
destroy station environments [34].
3) Speed. The value of travel time will not change
much in this new world and must be central to how any
rail system is designed. Giving reasonably long station
distances and separated right-of-way is critical. Light rail
running on dedicated right-of-way, rather than on-street
tram options, and with traffic light priority, will be mostly
needed in car dependent cities.
4) PPP (Private-Public Partnership) Procurement.
The delivery process can enable all of these options to be
highlighted if procurement is based on a PPP process, as
suggested by many (e.g. [8,35]). The Gold Coast Light
Rail provides the best example in Australia of how PPP
approaches can be achieved in light rail. The full integration with land use remains to be done and is much more
likely if land value capture (see below) is made part of
the package.
5) New assessment approaches for rail. There are
two major ways for rail to be improved through the assessment process: recognizing the role of agglomeration
economies in a Benefit-Cost Ratio and recognizing the
role of avoidable land development costs. Agglomeration
economies are being included in transportation BCR’s
since the Eddington Transport Study in the UK [36].
Their application in rail is considerably better than road
projects as rail acts as a focusing feature that enables the
synergies and clustering of knowledge economy productivity, i.e. the Walking City. Reference [37] outlines the
value of agglomeration elasticities for Australian cities.
Even more significant (though rarely done) is the use of
avoidable costs in assessment of transportation. Rail and
its focusing ability in land use can enable reductions in
urban sprawl that invariably is heavily subsidized and
has many external costs. Reference [38] shows the considerable cost savings and health benefits from rail-oriented development as opposed to car-based development
that can be included in any transportation assessment.
6) New approaches to funding rail through value
capture. Rail infrastructure increases land value due to
its accessibility benefits. This value can be captured and
used to help fund the infrastructure. Reference [39] demonstrates that a five-step process can work in the following way:
a) Accessibility benefits analysis to demonstrate the
land area where owners will benefit most from the new
JTTs
P. NEWMAN
infrastructure.
b) Land value data collection of the differential between those areas varying in accessibility. This can be
around 20% - 25% for residential land values and over
50% for commercial land values.
c) Assessment of the various potential financing
mechanisms available in the city through public and private value capture, e.g. government land and parking
revenues.
d) Economic and financial assessment of how much
land value can contribute to the funding of rail through a
dedicated fund based on land value taxes that are going
to increase due to the new rail system.
e) Delivery through a planning mechanism and a fund
established to bring it together, probably in a PPP.
If rail is going to continue to grow and car use to decline then a range of sophisticated value capture mechanisms will be needed for each city to make the most of
this opportunity for funding.
6. Can Light Rail Work in Small Car
Dependent Cities?
Perhaps the most significant trend in recent years in Australia (and America) has been the emergence of light rail
as an issue in small car dependent cities across the country. Lobby groups in Australia have been actively pushing the political case for light rail in Canberra, Hobart,
Bendigo, Darwin, Newcastle, Cairns and Parramatta (although embedded within Sydney, it is like a small town,
as it would need to be an independent and isolated system servicing a local population, not unlike the other
smaller cities). These cities are mostly well under
300,000 people, Canberra being the largest at a little over
300,000. Similar trends have been observed in the US
[8].
The question needs to be asked whether this is likely
to be a viable option for these small cities, since the traditional approach would suggest it was not. Bus options
have long been considered the only viable option for
small cities. However, the above dramatic turnaround in
the fortunes of light rail may be indicating that a new era
of viability for light rail in small cities is emerging. The
case for these cities to be considered is based on an understanding of what is likely to be causing the above
trends in traditionally car-dominated cities, as well as
some new options for assessing and funding light rail in
such cities.
There are 545 cities with light rail and from this there
are now 118 cities with populations under 150,000 that
have light rail or are constructing light rail. This appears
to suggest that a changing appreciation of the value of
light rail in small cities has occurred, as shown in Figure
10. The change is probably associated with the shift in
value associated with the trends outlined above in peak
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
ET AL.
285
Figure 10. The shift in value of light rail projects in recent
decades has made increasingly smaller cities viable for light
rail [Authors’ Own Graphic].
car use, fuel prices, urban traffic speed trends and urban
economic and cultural changes.
The key to whether a small city is ready to take on a
light rail option will be whether its economy is sufficiently oriented to the knowledge/services economy that
requires strong functioning Walking City centers, linked
by transit. It will be a city where traffic is becoming an
issue in these centers and where attempts to traffic calm,
reduce parking and bring people without cars, is firmly
on the planning agenda, thus reducing traffic speeds. It
will also be a city where young people are moving to live
and to gather in these centers for their cultural life, rather
than just driving around suburbs. Such cities will find the
addition of light rail an invaluable part of being a small
contributor to the 21st century with its reduced car dependence
7. Conclusions
The peak car phenomenon can be approached through
many lenses. This paper has addressed the issue through
the lens of rail and its dramatic turnaround across the
globe. The rise of rail in its first incarnation was a major
part of the industrial revolution and led to a new kind of
urban form. In its second rise, rail again seems to be
having a structural, economic and cultural change at its
heart. The rise is due to limits on car-based cities that
have well and truly set in to cities in the developed world
and probably have set in to cities in the emerging world,
as evidenced by the trends in countries in Asia and the
Middle East [40]. As traffic speeds slowly and city centers continue to grow, there will be an acceleration of the
need for fast rail links across, around and between cities.
The importance of travel time and its reflection in urban
fabric continues to drive the core demand for urban rail.
But it is also the case that urban economy and culture are
moving toward a more people-centered urban form that
is less car-based and less suburban [41]. This demise of
car dependence is an historic global trend that appears
now to be a major driver of change in our cities.
JTTs
P. NEWMAN
286
ET AL.
http://www.ausbt.com.au/london-frankfurt-direct-high-sp
eed-train-service-still-on-track
This is good news for matters like climate change and
peak oil that threaten to sink the economies of major
global cities unless dramatic change occurs [42-44]. If
the arguments in this paper are correct then the structural
change we need to enable this dramatic change could
well be underway. The need to make the most of this
trend should be high on the agenda of any large or small
city.
Application of the new approaches outlined above,
especially value capture to help fund new rail options,
may well make these projects viable for many more large
and small cities that want a way out of their car dependence.
[12] M. Bradley and J. Kenworthy, “Congestion Offsets: Transforming Cities by Letting Buses Compete,” World Transportation Policy and Practice, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2012, pp.
46-70.
8. Acknowledgements
[13] J. Gehl, “Cities for People,” Island Press, Washington DC,
2012.
The authors are grateful for the assistance of Monika
Brunetti and Phil Webster in helping to prepare some of
the data used in this paper and in layout.
REFERENCES
[1]
P. Newman, T. Beatley and H. Boyer, “Resilient Cities:
Responding to Climate Change and Peak Oil,” Island Press,
Washington DC, 2009.
[2]
C. Hass-Klau, G. Crampton and R. Benjari, “Economic
Impact of Light Rail: The Results of 15 Urban Areas in
France, Germany, UK and North America,” U.K. Environmental and Transport Planning, Brighton, 2004.
[3]
J. Kenworthy, “An International Review of The Significance of Rail in Developing More Sustainable Urban
Transport Systems in Higher Income Cities,” World Transport Policy and Practice, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2008, pp. 21-37.
[4]
T. A. Litman, “Rail Transit in America: Comprehensive
Evaluation of Benefits,” 2004.
http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf
[5]
P. Newman and J. Kenworthy, “Peak Car Use: Understanding the Demise of Automobile Dependance,” World
Transport Policy and Practice, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2011, pp.
32-42.
[6]
[7]
J. Kenworthy, “Trends in Transport and Urban Development in Thirty-Three International Cities 1995-6 to
2005-6: Some Prospects for Lower Carbon Transport,” In:
Lehmann, Ed., Low Carbon Cities: Transforming Urban
Systems, Routledge, London, 2013.
[10] P. Holdsworth, “$968 Billion in projects set for GCC,
2012.
http://www.abu-dhabi-metro.com/featured/968-billion-inprojects-set-for-gcc
[11] American Public Transport Association (APTA), “APTA
Quarterly Ridership Report,” 1990.
http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/APT
A-Ridership-by-Mode-and-Quarter-1990-Present.xls
[14] P. Schiller, E. Brunn and J. Kenworthy, “An Introduction
to Sustainable Transportation: Policy, Planning and Implementation,” Earthscan, London, 2010.
[15] Australian Government Department of Infrastructure and
Transport: Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economies (BITRE), “Australian Infrastructure
Statistics Yearbook,” 2011.
http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/files/stats_004
.pdf
[16] J. Goldberg, “The Brisconnections Airport Link: The Inevitable Collapse of a 5 Billion Dollar Megaproject,”
Proceedings of the ATRF Conference, Perth, 2012.
[17] D. Gargett, “Traffic Growth: Modelling a Global Phenomenon,” World Transport Policy and Practice, Vol. 18,
No. 4, 2012, pp. 27-45.
[18] P. Goodwin and S. Melia, “Three Views on ‘Peak Car,”
World Transport Policy and Practice, Vol. 17, No. 4,
2011, pp. 3-6.
[19] B. Davis, T. Dutzik, and P. Baxandall, “Transportation
and the New Generation: Why Young People Are Driving
Less and What It Means for Transportation Policy,” Frontier Group and U.S. PIRG Education Fund, Washington
DC, 2012.
[20] P. W. G. Newman and J. R. Kenworthy, “Sustainability
and Cities,” Island Press, Washington DC, 1999.
[21] R. Cervero, “The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry,”
Island Press, Washington DC, 1998.
[22] J. Kenworthy and F. B. Laube, “The Millennium Cities
Database for Sustainable Transport,” International Union
of Public Transport UITP and the Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy ISTP), Brussels, 2001.
H. König and G. Heipp, “The Modern Tram in Europe”,
2008,
http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/The-Mode
rn-Tram-in-Europe.pdf
[23] J. R. Kenworthy, et al., “An International Sourcebook of
Automobile Dependence in Cities 1960-1990,” University Press of Colorado, Boulder, 1999.
[8]
G. D. Bottoms, “Continuing Developments in Light Rail
Transit in Western Europe: United Kingdom, France,
Spain, Portugal and Italy,” Proceedings of the 9th National Light Rail Conference of the Transportation Research Board and APTA, Portland, Oregon, 2003, pp.
713-729.
[24] J. R. Kenworthy and F. B. Laube, “Patterns of Automobile Dependence in Cities: An International Overview of
Key Physical and Economic Dimensions with Some Implications for Urban Policy,” Transportation Research A,
Vol. 33, No. 7-8, 1999, pp. 691-723.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(99)00006-3
[9]
D. Flynn, “London-Frankfurt Direct High-Speed Train
Service Still on Track,” 2013.
[25] M. Gladwell, “The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can
Make a Big Difference,” Little Brown, London, 2000.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
JTTs
P. NEWMAN
[26] R. Jayaram, “Dedicated Rail Network Plan for NCR on
Track,” The Economic Times, May 16th, 2012.
[27] J. W. Neff, “Substitution Rates between Transit and Automobile Travel,” Paper presented at the Association of
American Geographers Annual Meeting, Charlotte, North
Carolina, 1996.
[28] M. Kane, “The Knowledge Economy and Public Transport,” In: P. Newman and J. Scheurer, Eds., The Knowledge Arc Light: A Concept for Delivering the Next Phase
of Public Transport in Perth, Parsons-Brinkerhoff and
Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute,
Perth, 2010.
[29] A. Matan and P. Newman, “Jan Gehl and New Visions
for Walkable Australian Cities,” World Transport Policy
and Practice, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2012, pp. 30-33.
[30] R. Florida, “The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living
and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity,” Harper Collins, New York, 2010.
[31] J. McIntosh, P. Newman, J. Scheurer and A. Wisdom,
“Initial Assessment of the Accessibility and New Funding
Opportunities for the Doncaster Rail Project,” 2012.
http://www.manningham.vic.gov.au/council/consultation/
on_track.html
[32] M. Bachels and P. Newman, “Transit Orientated Development,” In: R. Salter, S. Dhar and P. Newman, Eds.,
Technologies for Climate Change Mitigation—Transport,
TNA Guidebook series Chapter 3, UNEP Riso Centre for
Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development, Denmark,
pp. 71-84.
[33] J. Renne and C. Curtis, “Transit Orientated Development:
Making it Happen,” Ashgate Publishers, London, 2011.
[34] P. Schiller and J. Kenworthy, “Walk to Transit or Drive
to Transit?” Proceedings of Annual Walk 21 Conference,
Vancouver, 2011.
[35] Infrastructure Australia, “Infrastructure Financing and Funding Reform: Infrastructure Financing Working Group,”
2012.
http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications/file
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
ET AL.
287
s/IFWG_Report_FINAL.pdf
[36] R. Eddington, “The Eddington Transport Study: The Case
for Action Sir Rod Eddington’s Advice to Government,”
2006.
http://www.thepep.org/ClearingHouse/docfiles/Eddington
.Transport.Study%20-%20Rod.pdf
[37] R. L. Trubka, “Agglomeration Economies in Australian
Cities: Productivity Benefits of Increasing Urban Density
and Accessibility,” Ph.D. Thesis, Curtin University—Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute, Perth,
2011.
[38] R. Trubka, P. Newman and D. Bilsborough, “Costs of
Urban Sprawl (1)—Infrastructure and Transport,” Environment Design Guide, Vol. 83, 2010, pp. 1-6.
[39] J. McIntosh, P. Newman, T. Crane and M. Mouritz, “Alternative Funding for Public Transport in Perth,” Committee for Perth and CUSP, Perth, 2011.
[40] “Middle East Rail market Report,” 2012.
Blogs.terrapinn.com/total-rail
[41] C. Hass-Klau, G. Crampton, C. Biereth and V. Deutsch,
“Bus or Light Rail: Making the Right Choice—A Financial, Operational and Demand Comparison of Light Rail,
Guided Buses, Busways and Bus Lanes,” U.K. Environmental and Transport Planning, Brighton, 2003.
[42] R. Trubka, P. Newman and D. Bilsborough, “Costs of Urban Sprawl (2)—Greenhouse Gases,” Environment Design Guide, Vol. 84, 2010, pp. 1-16.
[43] R. Trubka, P. Newman and D. Bilsborough, “Costs of
Urban Sprawl (3)—Physical Activity Links to Healthcare
Costs and Productivity,” Environment Design Guide, Vol.
85, 2010, pp. 1-13.
[44] P. Newman and J. Kenworthy, “Evaluating the Transport
Sector’s Contribution to Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Energy Consumption,” In: R. Salter, S. Dahr and P. Newman, Eds., Technologies for Climate Change Mitigation—Transport, TNA Guidebook Series, Chapter 2, UNEP
Riso Centre for Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development, Denmark, 2011, pp. 7-23.
JTTs