• Jean MercierEmail author
  • Fanny Tremblay-Racicot
  • Mario Carrier
  • Fábio Duarte


The authors begin by pointing out to the reasons why studying sustainable urban transport is pertinent at this time of human history. Indeed, although cities only occupy 2% of the earth’s landmass, they produce 75% of total greenhouse gases (GHG). The world population living in cities now stands at 50%, and this proportion is growing steadily. The authors then point to the fact that, although other sectors of the world economy have seen progress in working on reducing greenhouse gases, particularly in the energy production and manufacturing sectors, there is no progress in the transport sector, where in fact the situation is getting worse year by year. Yet, the authors conclude, there is little comparative work or longitudinal studies on these important subjects. The chapter then offers a comprehensive list of factors affecting urban transport, divided into upstream factors, such as climate, over which public authorities have little control, and downstream factors, such as policy and policy instruments, where they can act more directly and proactively. Finally, the three cities studied, Seattle, Montreal, and Curitiba are presented and reasons are given for choosing them as cities that have a story to tell on sustainable urban transport.


Urban transport Cities Greenhouse gases Comparative studies 


  1. AASHTO—American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2013). Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends. Accessed 21 May 2018.
  2. Antier, G. (2005). Les stratégies des grandes métropoles. Enjeux, pouvoirs et aménagement. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  3. Arcadis. (2017a). Sustainable Cities Mobility Index 2017. Bold Moves. Accessed 5 February 2018.
  4. Arcadis. (2017b). Sustainable Cities Mobility Index 2017. Bold Moves. North America Edition. Accessed 5 February 2018.
  5. Bache, I., Bartle, I., Flinders, M., Marsden, G. (2015). Blame Games and Climate Change: Accountability, Multi-Level Governance and Carbon Management. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 17, 64–88. Scholar
  6. Bache, I., Reardon, L., Bartle, I., Flinders, M., Marsden, G. (2014). Symbolic Meta-Policy: (Not) Tackling Climate Change in the Transport Sector. Political Studies. Scholar
  7. Barber, B. R. (2013). If Mayors Ruled the World. Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bouteligier, S. (2013). Cities, Networks, and Global Environmental Governance. Spaces of Innovation, Places of Leadership. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, D. (2012). Comparative Climate Change Policy and Federalism: An Overview. Review of Policy Research, 29(3), 322–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. (2013). Revisiting the Urban Politics of Climate Change. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 136–154. Scholar
  11. Cervero, R. (2005). Accessible Cities and Regions: A Framework for Sustainable Transport and Urbanism in the 21st Century (Working Paper UCB-ITS-VWP-2005-3). University of California Berkeley Center for Future Urban Transport.Google Scholar
  12. City of Montreal. (Circa 2010). Le Déplacement des Personnes à Montréal et dans sa Région. Projet de plan de développement de Montréal. Fiche d’information. Based on Travel Survey 2008 Data: Secrétariat à l’Enquête Origine-Destination. 2008. L’Enquête OD 2008. (all Morning Trips). Accessed 13 August 2013.
  13. Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal. (2016). Portrait of Greater Montreal (2016 edition). Metropolitan Reports (5). Accessed 14 May 2018.
  14. Demery, L. (2004). Bus Rapid Transit in Curitiba, Brazil—An Information Summary (Special Report 1). Accessed 23 June 2018.
  15. Dierwechter, Y., & Wessells, T. (2013). The Uneven Localisation of Climate Action in Metropolitan Seattle. Urban Studies, 50(7), 1368–1385. Scholar
  16. Duarte, F., & Rojas, F. (2012). Intermodal Connectivity to BRT: A Comparative Analysis of Bogotá and Curitiba. Journal of Public Transportation, 15(2), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. EMC Research. (2014). 2014 Center City Commuter Mode Split Survey. Seattle, Commute Seattle. Accessed 21 May 2018.
  18. Florida, R. (2008). Who’s Your City? How the Creative Economy Is Making Where to Live the Most Important Decision of Your Life. Toronto: Random House Canada.Google Scholar
  19. Frey, K. (2012). Abordagens de governança em áreas metropolitanas da América Latina: avanços e entraves. Urbe, 4(1), 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grimsrud, M., & El-Geneidy, A. (2013). Driving Transit Retention to Renaissance: Trends in Montreal Commute Public Transport Mode Share and Factors by Age Group and Birth Cohort. Public Transport, 5(3), 219–241. Scholar
  21. Hall, P. (1995). Cidades de Amanhã. Uma história intelectual do planejamento e do projeto urbanos no século XX. São Paulo: Perspectiva.Google Scholar
  22. Hassan, A. M., & Lee, H. (2015). Toward the Sustainable Development of Urban Areas: An Overview of Global Trends in Trials and Policies. Land Use Policy, 48, 199–212. Scholar
  23. Horak, M., & Young, R. (Eds.). (2012). Sites of Governance: Multilevel Governance and Policy Making in Canada’s Big Cities. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Howlett, M. (1991). Policy Instruments, Policy Styles, and Policy Implementation: National Approaches to Theories of Instrument Choice. Policy Studies Journal, 19(2), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Howlett, M. (2001). Gouvernance environnementale et gestion de réseaux. In E. A. Parson (Ed.), Gérer l’environnement (pp. 303–341). Montréal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
  26. Howlett, M. (2011). Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Howlett, M. (2014). From the ‘Old’ to the ‘New’ Policy Design: Design Thinking Beyond Markets and Collaborative Governance. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 187–207. Scholar
  28. Howlett, M., Rayner, J., & Jollefson, C. (2009). From Government to Governance in Forest Planning? Lessons from the Case of the British Columbia Great Bear Rainforest Initiative. Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 383–391. Scholar
  29. International Energy Agency. (2013). CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion. Highlights. Paris: OECD/IEA. Accessed 13 August 2013.
  30. Johnston, R. (2004). The Urban Transportation Planning Process. In S. Hanson & G. Giuliano (Eds.), The Geography of Urban Transportation (pp. 115–140). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. W., & Zito, A. (2003). Comparative Conclusions—“New” Environmental Policy Instruments: An Evolution or a Revolution in Environmental Policy? Environmental Politics, 12(1), 201–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. W., & Zito, A. (2005). The Rise of “New” Policy Instruments in Comparative Perspective: Has Governance Eclipsed Government? Political Studies, 53(3), 477–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kassim, H., & Le Galès, P. (2010). Exploring Governance in a Multi-Level Polity: A Policy Instruments Approach. West European Politics, 33(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kenworthy, J. (2008). Energy Use and CO2 Production in the Urban Passenger Transport Systems of 84 International Cities: Findings and Policy Implications. In P. Droege (Ed.), Urban Energy Transition: From Fossil Fuels to Renewable Power. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  35. Klink, J., & Denaldi, R. (2012). Metropolitan Fragmentation and Neo-Localism in the Periphery. Revisiting the Case of Curitiba. Urban Studies, 49(3), 549–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koch, P. (2013). Overestimating the Shift from Government to Governance: Evidence from Swiss Metropolitan Areas. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 26(3), 397–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee, T., & Painter, M. (2015). Comprehensive Local Climate Policy: The Role of Urban Governance. Urban Climate, 14(4), 566–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lindau, L. A., Hidalgo, D., & Facchini, D. (2010). Curitiba, the Cradle of Bus Rapid Transit. Built Environment, 36(3), 274–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Littmann, T. (2013). The New Transportation Planning Paradigm. ITE Journal, 83(6), 20–28.Google Scholar
  40. Marsden, G., Mullen, C., Bache, I., Bartle, I., & Flinders, M. (2014). Carbon Reduction and Travel Behaviour: Discourses, Disputes and Contradictions in Governance. Transport Policy, 35(2014), 71–78. Scholar
  41. Martinez, J. G., Boas, I. Lenhart, J., Mol, A. P. J. (2016). Revealing Curitiba’s Flawed Sustainability: How Discourse Can Prevent Institutional Change. Habitat International, 53, 350–359. Scholar
  42. May, T., & Crass, M. (2007). Sustainability in Transport. Implications for Policy Makers. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2017, 1–9. Scholar
  43. Mayeres, I. (2000). The Efficiency Effects of Transport Policies in the Presence of Externalities and Distortionary Taxes. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 34(2), 233–259.Google Scholar
  44. Mayntz, R. (2006). From Government to Governance: Political Steering in Modern Societies. In D. Scheer & F. Rubik (Eds.), Governance of Integrated Product Policy: In Search of Sustainable Production and Consumption (pp. 18–25). Aizlewood Mill: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. Mees, P. (2010). Transport for Suburbia: Beyond the Automobile Age. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  46. Meijer, A., & Rodriguez Bolivar, M. P. (2015). Governing the Smart City: A Review of the Literature on Smart Urban Governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408. Scholar
  47. Monbiot, G. (2006). Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning. New York: Penguins Books.Google Scholar
  48. Newman, P. W. G., & Kenworthy, J. R. (1996). The Land Use-Transport Connection: An Overview. Land Use Policy, 13(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Paquot, T. (2006). Terre urbaine. Cinq défis pour le devenir urbain de la planète. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  50. Pierre, J. (2011). The Politics of Urban Governance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, Politics and the State. London: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  52. Rabinovitch, J. (1992). Curitiba: Towards Sustainable Urban Development. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rabinovitch, J., & Leitman, J. (1996). Urban Planning in Curitiba. Scientific American, 274(3), 46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Salamon, L. M. (with Collaboration of Elliot, O. V.). (2002). The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Shaheen, S., Guzman, S., & Zhang, H. (2010). Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, Present, and Future. Transportation Research Record, 2143(1), 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shaw, J., Knowles, R., & Docherty, I. (2008). Introducing Transport Geographies. In R. Knowles, J. Shaw, & I. Docherty (Eds.), Transport Geographies. Mobilities, Flows and Spaces (pp. 3–9). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  57. Siemens A. G. (2010). Latin American Green City Index. Accessed 5 February 2018.
  58. Siemens A. G. (2011). US and Canada Green City Index. Accessed 5 February 2018.
  59. Sperling, D. (2018). Three Revolutions: Steering Automated, Shared, and Electric Vehicles to a Better Future. Washington, DC: Island Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Torfing, J., Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., & Sorensen, E. (2012). Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm. Cary NC and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Torfing, J., & Triantafillou, P. (2013). What’s in a Name? Grasping New Public Governance as a Political-Administrative System. International Review of Public Administration, 18(2), 9–25. Scholar
  62. Tremblay-Racicot, F., & Mercier, J. (2014). Integrating Transportation and Land Use Planning at the Metropolitan Level in North America: Multilevel Governance in Toronto and Chicago. Urbe, 6(2), 184–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. United States Department of State. (2010). U.S. Climate Action Report 2010. Washington: Global Publishing Services.Google Scholar
  64. Vedung, E. (1998). Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories. In M.-L. Bemelmans-Videc, R. C. Rist, & E. Vedung (Eds.), Carrot, Sticks & Sermons. Policy Instruments & Their Evaluation (pp. 21–58). New-Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  65. Wickson, T. (2004). A Century of Moving Canada: Public Transit 1904–2004. Toronto: Canadian Urban Transit Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean Mercier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fanny Tremblay-Racicot
    • 2
  • Mario Carrier
    • 3
  • Fábio Duarte
    • 4
  1. 1.Université LavalQuébecCanada
  2. 2.École nationale d’administration publiqueQuébecCanada
  3. 3.Université LavalQuébecCanada
  4. 4.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations