Geographic Transport Planning Principles in Norwegian City Regions: The Case of Work Travel in Stavanger

  • Daniela Müller-EieEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 879)


The Norwegian Parliament has recently carried out a motion for all Norwegian city regions to curb all growth in private car use and redirect urban travel into public transport, cycling and walking. The county of Rogaland has therefore devised a set of transport and mobility measures for the Stavanger city region, such as a bus rapid system, a cycle highway, toll ring roads, sustainable mobility strategies, but also increased road capacity. This paper examines some of the underlying geographic hypotheses of sustainable transport planning aiming at reduced private car use.

The Stavanger city region is characterised by dispersed development and high levels of car ownership and use, as well as an affluent population. Work travel data is used to investigate geographic factors that are assumed to impact on travel behaviour, such as travel distance, centrality and proximity to public transport. The question is whether the local work travel behaviour confirms typical assumptions about transport-oriented development. This study contributes to a better understanding of urban travel choice and its factors, thus helping to optimise local government efforts to reduce car travel.


Transport planning Transport-oriented development 


  1. 1.
    Stead, D., Williams, J., Titheridge, H.: Land use, transport and people: identifying the connections. In: Williams, K., Burton, E., Jenks, M. (eds.) Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, E & FN Spon, London (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Næss, P.: Urban structures and travel behaviour. Experiences from empirical research in Norway and Denmark. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 3(2), 155–178 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Donald, I.J., Cooper, S.R., Conchie, S.: An extended theory of planned behaviour model of the psychological factors affecting commuters’ transport mode use. J. Environ. Psychol. 40, 39–48 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asensio, J.: Transport mode choice by commuters to Barcelona’s CBD. Urban Stud. 39(10), 1881–1895 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Graham-Rowe, E., Skippon, S., Gardner, B., Abraham, C.: Can we reduce car use and if so, how? A review of available evidence. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 45(5), 401–418 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buehler, R.: Determinants of transport mode choice: a comparison of Germany and the USA. J. Transp. Geogr. 19(4), 644–657 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bonsall, P.: Do we know whether personal travel planning really works? Transp. Policy 16(6), 306–314 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brög, W., Erl, E., Ker, I., Ryle, J., Wall, R.: Evaluation of voluntary travel behaviour change: experiences from three continents. Transp. Policy 16, 281–292 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chatterjee, K.: A comparative evaluation of large-scale personal travel planning projects in England. Transp. Policy 16(6), 293–305 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Friman, M., Larhult, L., Garling, T.: An analysis of soft transport policy measures implemented in Sweden to reduce private car use. Transportation 40(1), 109–129 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Taylor, M.A.: Voluntary travel behavior change programs in Australia: the carrot rather than the stick in travel demand management. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 1(3), 173–192 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vale, D.S.: Does commuting time tolerance impede sustainable urban mobility? Analysing the impacts on commuting behaviour as a result of workplace relocation to a mixed-use centre in Lisbon. J. Transp. Geogr. 32, 38–48 (2013). Vedtatt okt 2013. (2013). Regionalplan for Jæren 2013-2040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rogaland Fylkeskommune: Regionalplan for Jæren 2013–2040. vedtatt okt 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    FitzRoy, F., Smith, I.: Public transport demand in Freiburg: why did patronage double in a decade? Transp. Policy 5, 163–173 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Müller-Eie, D.: Urban environmental performance and individual behaviour: a comparison between Freiburg and Stavanger. Ph.D., Glasgow School of Art: Mackintosh School of Architecture, University of Glasgow, Glasgow (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Müller-Eie, D., Bjørnø, L.: The implementation of urban sustainability strategies: theoretical and methodological implications for researching behaviour change. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 12(5), 13 (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anable, J., Lane, B., Kelay, T.: An Evidence Base Review of Public Attitudes to Climate Change and Transport Behaviour. The Department for Transport (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Steg, L.: Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 39(2–3), 147–162 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwanen, T., Banister, D., Anable, J.: Rethinking habits and their role in behaviour change: the case of low-carbon mobility. J. Transp. Geogr. 24, 522–532 (2012). StavangerStatistikkenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stavanger Statistikken. Accessed Oct 2017
  21. 21.
    Verplanken, B.: Old habits and new routes to sustainable behaviour. In: Whitmarsh, L., O’Neill, S., Lorenzoni, I. (eds.) Engaging the Public with Climate Change: Behaviour Change and Communication. Earthscan, London (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hillnhütter, H.: Pedestrian access to public transport. University of Stavanger (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations