Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Which Policy Tools to Move Towards Low Carbon Mobility?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Non-technological Innovations for Sustainable Transport

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology ((BRIEFSAPPLSCIENCES))

Abstract

Most of the challenges associated to the transition towards low carbon mobility being concentrated in cities, this chapter focuses on the implementation of policy tools at the urban scale. After a conceptual overview of the economics of low carbon mobility in Sect. 2.1, we present the toolbox of the policymaker for reducing CO2 from urban mobility in Sect. 2.2, by subsequently appraising the efficiency, equity and acceptability of a sample of policy tools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Equity perception is obviously differently perceived depending on the ‘evaluator’. It will for example vary if it comes from frequent car users by themselves and for themselves or by themselves and for low income groups or citizens in sparsely populated areas.

References

  1. Agence De l’Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l’Energie—ADEME (2011) Etat de l’art sur le développement des LEZ en Europe. Service Evaluation de la Qualité de l’Air, mise à jour mars 2011

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Armelius H, Hultkrantz L (2006) The politico-economic link between public transport and road pricing:an ex-ante study of the Stockholm road-pricing trial. Transp Policy 13(2006):162–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arsenio E, Di Ciommo F, Dupont-Kieffer A, Fearnley N, Julsrud E, Kaplan S, Keseru I, Madre J-L, Martens K, Mitsakis E, Monzon A, Paez A, Papanikolaou N, Sauri S, Shiftan Y, Sivakumar A, Vallee D (2014). Transport equity analysis: assessment and integration of equity criteria in transportation planning. COST Action TU 1209 2014

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bamberg S, Fujii S, Friman M, Gärling T (2011) Behaviour theory and soft transport policy measures. Transp Policy 18(1):228–235, Jan 2011

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beck MJ, Rose JM, Hensher DA (2013) Consistently inconsistent: the role of certainty, acceptability and scale in choice. Transp Res Part E 56(2013):81–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bioethanol for Sustainable Transport—BEST (2010) The BEST experiences with bioethanol buses. BEST WP2 Deliverable No 2.08, Buses Final Report March 2010, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bonsall P, Young W (2010) Is there a case for replacing parking charges by road user charges? Transp Policy 17(2010):323–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bresson G, Joyce D, Madre J-L, Pirotte A (2003) The main determinants of the demand for public transport: a comparative analysis of England and France using shrinkage estimators. Transp Res Part A 37(2003):605–627

    Google Scholar 

  10. Button K (2006) The political economy of parking charges in “first” and “second-best” worlds. Transp Policy 13(2006):470–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cats O, Reimal1 T, Susilo Y (2014) Public transport pricing policy—empirical evidence from a fare-free scheme in Tallinn, Estonia. Paper submitted for presentation at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research 19 Board, Washington, Jan 2014

    Google Scholar 

  12. Commissariat Général au Développement Durable—CGDD (2011) Consommation de carburant: effets des prix à court et à long termes par type de population. Etudes et Documents n°40 avril 2011

    Google Scholar 

  13. Commissariat Général au Développement Durable—CGDD (2012) Etude sur les externalités des transports—Le monde routier. Service de l’Economie, de l’Evaluation et de l’Intégration du Développement Durable, Sous-Direction Mobilité et Aménagement

    Google Scholar 

  14. Commissariat Général à la Stratégie et à la Prospective—CGSP (2013) L’évaluation socioéconomique des investissements publics. Rapport de la mission présidée par Emile Quinet, septembre 2013

    Google Scholar 

  15. Charles L, Roussel I, Gobert J, Blanchet A (2011) Les initiatives ZAPA: un tournant dans laction de la prévention de la pollution atmosphérique? Pollution atmosphérique n°210, avril-juin 2011

    Google Scholar 

  16. Charleux L (2014) Contingencies of environmental justice: the case of individual mobility and grenoble’s low-emission zone. Urban Geogr 35(2):197–218

    Google Scholar 

  17. Crozet Y, Lopez-Ruiz HG (2013) Macromotives and microbehaviors: climate change constraints and passenger mobility scenarios for France, Transport Policy 2013 29(C):294–302

    Google Scholar 

  18. De Borger B, Proost S (2012) A political economy model of road pricing. J Urban Econ 71(2012):79–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dietz S, Atkinson G (2005) Public perceptions of equity in environmental policy: traffic emissions policy in an English urban area. Local Environ 10(4):445–459, Aug 2005

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ding C, Song S, Zhang Y (2008) Paradoxes of traffic flow and economics of congestion pricing. UNR joint economics working paper series working paper no. 08-007

    Google Scholar 

  21. Eliasson J (2008) Lessons from the Stockholm congestion charging trial. Transp Policy 15(2008):395–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ellison RB, Greaves SP, Hensher DA (2013) Five years of London’s low emission zone: effects on vehicle fleet composition and air quality. Transp Res Part D 23(2013):25–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Eriksson L, Garvill J, Nordlund A (2006) Acceptability of travel demand management measures: the importance of problem awareness, personal norm, freedom, and fairness. J Environ Psychol 26(2006):15–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. European Commission (2011) White paper: roadmap to a single European transport area—towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. COM (2011) 144 final, Brussels, 28 Mar 2011

    Google Scholar 

  25. European Commission (2012) EU transport in figures. Statistical Pocketbook 2012

    Google Scholar 

  26. European Environment Agency—EEA (2011) Transport infrastructure investments (TERM 019)—Assessment published Jan 2011

    Google Scholar 

  27. European Environment Agency—EEA (2012) EU transport in figures. Statistical Pocketbook 2012, © European Union 2012

    Google Scholar 

  28. Farber B, Li P, Nurul H (2014) Social equity in distance based transit fares. Paper presented to the 93rd annual meeting of the transportation research board, Washington, 12–16 Jan 2014

    Google Scholar 

  29. Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Standford University Press, Standford

    Google Scholar 

  30. Finn B (2005) Study of systems of private participation in public transport. PPIAF, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  31. Fu M, Andrew Kelly J (2012) Carbon related taxation policies for road transport: efficacy of ownership and usage taxes, and the role of public transport and motorist cost perception on policy outcomes. Transp Policy 22:57–69, July 2012

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gálvez T, Jara-Díaz SR (1998) On the social valuation of travel time savings. Int J Transp Econ 25(2):205–219

    Google Scholar 

  33. Givoni M, Banister D (2013) Moving towards low carbon mobility. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 1 Jan 2013, p 293

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gunn LA (1978) Why is implementation so difficult? Manage Serv Gov 33:169–176

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hansen WG (1959) How accessibility shapes land use. J Am Inst Planners 25(2):73–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hensher DA (2007) Bus transport: economics, policy and planning. research in transportation economics, vol 18. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p xix–xxviii, 1–507

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hivert L, Wingert J-L (2010) Automobile et automobilité : quelles évolutions de comportements face aux variations du prix des carburants de 2000 à 2008?. 68 pages, Chapitre de l’ouvrage collectif «Pétrole Mobilité CO2» coordonné par Y. Crozet, LET, pour PREDIT-DRI, juin 2010

    Google Scholar 

  38. Institute of Transport Economics—TØI (2011) How to manage barriers to formation and implementation of policy packages in transport. Deliverable 5, June 2011

    Google Scholar 

  39. International Transport Forum—ITF (2008) Transport infrastructure investment options for efficiency. OECD International Forum, OECD publishing, 14 Feb 2008

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ison S, Rye T (2003) Lessons from travel planning and road user charging for policy-making: through imperfection to implementation. Transp Policy 10(2003):223–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Jaensirisak S, Wardman M, May AD (2005) Explaining variations in public acceptability. J Transp Econ Policy 39(2):127–153, May 2005

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kaufmann V, Guidez J-M (1996) Les citadins face à l’automobile—les déterminants du choix modal. Paris, Fonds d’Intervention pour les Etudes et Recherches, p 188 (rapport du FIER n°19)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kilani M, Proost S, van der Loo S (2013) Road pricing and public transport pricing reform in Paris: complements or substitutes? Article in press

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kottenhoff K, Brundell Freij K (2009) The role of public transport for feasibility and acceptability of congestion charging—the case of Stockholm. Transp Res Part A 43(2009):297–305

    Google Scholar 

  45. Li Z, Hensher DA (2012) Congestion charging and car use: a review of stated preference and opinion studies and market monitoring evidence. Transp Policy 20(2012):47–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Madre J-L, André M, Rizet C, Leonardi J, Ottmann P (2010) Importance of the loading factor in transport CO2 emissions. 12th WCTR, Lisbon, Portugal, 11–15 July

    Google Scholar 

  47. Martens K (2011) Substance precedes methodology: on cost–benefit analysis and equity. Transportation 38:959–974

    Google Scholar 

  48. Martens K (2012) Justice in transport as justice in accessibility: applying Walzer’s ‘Spheres of Justice’. Transportation. doi 10.1007/s11116-012-9388-7, Springerlink.com

  49. May AD, Kelly C, Shepherd S (2006) The principles of integration in urban transport strategies. Transp Policy 13(4):319–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Meurisse B, Papaix C (2013) Overview of the policy toolbox for low-carbon road mobility in the European Union. Les Cahiers de la Chaire Economie du Climat, Série Informations et débats n°26

    Google Scholar 

  51. Nakamura K, Hyashi Y (2013) Strategies and instruments for low-carbon urban transport: an international review on trends and effects. Transp Policy 29(2013):264–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ortuzar JD, Willumsen LG (2011) Modelling transport, 4th edn. Mar 2011, ©2011 p 606

    Google Scholar 

  53. Parry I, Small K (2009) Should urban transit subsidies be reduced? Am Econ Rev 99(3):700–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Proost S, Van Dender K (2001) The welfare impacts of alternative policies to address atmospheric pollution in urban road transport. Reg Sci Urban Econ 31(2001):383–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Raux C, Souche S (2001) L’acceptabilité des changements tarifaires dans le secteur des transports : comment concilier efficacité et équité?. Revue d’économie régionale et urbaine, n°4, pp 539–558

    Google Scholar 

  56. Santos G, Behrend H, Maconi L, Shirvani T, Teytelboym A (2010) Part I: externalities and economic policies in road transport. Res Transp Econ 28(2010):2–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Schade J, Schlag B (2003) Acceptability of urban transport pricing strategies. Transp Res Part F 6(2003):45–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Schipper L, Cordeiro M, Wei-Shiuen NG (2007) Measuring the carbon dioxide impacts of urban transport projects in developing countries. World Resources Institute, 15 Nov 2007

    Google Scholar 

  59. Schuitema G, Steg L (2008) The role of revenue use in the acceptability of transport pricing policies. Transp Res Part F 11(2008):221–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Shoup D (1999) The trouble with minimum parking requirements. Transp Res Part A: Policy and Pract 33(7–8):549–574, Sep–Nov 1999

    Google Scholar 

  61. Thøgersen J (2009) Promoting public transport as a subscription service: effects of a free month travel card. Transp Policy 16(6):335–343

    Google Scholar 

  62. Verhoef ET (2005) Second-best congestion pricing schemes in the monocentric city. J Urban Econ 58(2005):367–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Verhoest K, Carbonara N, Lember L, Petersen OH, Scherrer W, Van den Hurk M (2013) Public private partnerships in transport: trends and theory P3T32013 Discussion Papers Part I Country Profiles

    Google Scholar 

  64. Victoria Transport Policy Institute—VTPI (2013) Understanding transport demands and elasticities. How prices and other factors affect travel behavior? Todd Alexander Litman 2005–2013

    Google Scholar 

  65. World Bank (2009). Urban transport and CO2 emissions: some evidence from Chinese cities. Working Paper—June 2009, Georges Darido, Mariana Torres-Montoya and Shomik Mehndiratta

    Google Scholar 

  66. Xenias D, Whitmarsh L (2013) Dimensions and determinants of expert and public attitudes to sustainable transport policies and technologies. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract 48:75–85

    Google Scholar 

  67. Zatti A (2004) La Tariffazione Dei Parcheggi come Strumento di Gestione della Mobilità Urbana: Alcuni Aspetti Critici. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia e Territoriale dell’Università di Pavia, 5

    Google Scholar 

  68. 6-t (2013) Etude de mobilité d’un échantillon d’habitants afin d’amener de nouveaux usagers vers le train: Expérience de marketing individualisé. 6-t Bureau de recherche. Commanditaire : Conseil Régional de Picardie, Partenaire : Emploi80 (ETTI) dans le cadre de la clause sociale

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EQUIPPE, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Lille 1, 59666, Villeneuve-d’Ascq Cedex, France

    Hakim Hammadou

  2. DEST-IFSTTAR, 14-20 Boulevard Newton, Cité Descartes, 77447, Marne la Vallée, Cedex 2, France

    Claire Papaix

Authors
  1. Hakim Hammadou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claire Papaix
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hakim Hammadou .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hammadou, H., Papaix, C. (2014). Which Policy Tools to Move Towards Low Carbon Mobility?. In: Non-technological Innovations for Sustainable Transport. SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09791-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09791-6_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-09790-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-09791-6

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation