Barriers to Sustainable Transport

Institutions, Regulation and Sustainability

Piet Rietveld, Roger R. Stough

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• ISBN:
  9781134348985
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Aménagement urbain et paysager

The complexity of transportation systems and their negative social and environmental effects are today at the centre of attention. This book focuses on the impact of institutions and regulatory systems on transport systems and travel behaviour. While institutions appear to play an important role in the economic success of many countries, this book considers the extent to which they also support sustainable development.

Chapter 1
Institutional dimensions of sustainable transport

Roger R. Stough and Piet Rietveld

There can be little doubt that the primary barriers to sustainable transport are institutional. Certainly, there are technical and operational barriers to the creation of infrastructure and the vehicles that use it, but most of these are well understood over short and intermediate time horizons and involve fairly routine actions for implementation once institutional impediments are overcome. For example, in the United States, recent experience shows that transport projects costing more than $1 billion require at least 20 years of negotiation, proposal and counter-proposal discussions, to remove institutional impediments and thereby implement the project.

While the argument for the primacy of institutions is made in earlier work by Rietveld and Stough (2002) and Stough and Rietveld (1997), the importance of institutions can be easily appreciated when it is recognized that transport modes and supporting technology exist that, if used or adopted more broadly, could move countries and the world towards greater environmental and economic sustainability not to mention better commercial performance. For example, some modes are more fuel efficient in moving people and freight than others and more environmentally friendly, for example rail versus truck or public transport versus the private car. Further, commercially available, off the shelf as well as experimental technologies exist that could, if adopted, make an enormous impact almost immediately. It is getting beyond the decision to adopt, deploy, or use that is the primary bottleneck. And this journey depends on values, culture, interest group goals, laws and statutes, regulations, and entrenched and existing practices.

For example, the adoption of an ordinance in Delhi, India a few years ago required all public buses and taxis to use LPGs – Liquefied Petroleum Gases (hardly a new technology). This had an immediate impact on environmental quality that was not only measurable but witnessed throughout the city because of the improved visibility. Yet the decision to make LPGs compulsory involved a time-consuming debate that dragged on for years and the resolve to withstand some two weeks of intensive demonstrations against the measure (by taxi and motorized rickshaw operators and owners) after its enabling legislation was passed. Today, by all accounts, everyone is pleased with and proud of the outcome. This example is interesting and apropos here in that it demonstrates how important institutional variables are in making decisions that move a transport system towards greater sustainability, as it is institutional barriers to sustainable transport that are the concern here.

In this book we focus on how to move transport and transport systems towards sustainability. We make the assumption that actions that increase efficiency in transport and energy use and also improve environmental quality, at least relative to current conditions, are contributing to sustainability. Thus, the aim of sustainable transport is viewed as evolving transport systems towards states that are more efficient, use less energy, have better environmental quality, and are compatible with the general concept of sustainability.

This introduction describes aspects of the nature of institutions, defines them, and introduces a typology that illustrates various institutional dimensions and their impact, potential and real, on transport systems. In this regard it is a fi rst ever attempt to bring some degree of formality to the understanding of the role of institutions and institutional analysis in transport. To further this aspect of the book institutional issues are illustrated with examples from the transport and sustainability contexts to demonstrate the scope and breadth of these issues and the thorny problems that they pose. From a research and policy perspective these and related problems in turn pose unique data and methodology issues that are therefore explored below.

This book evolved from a workshop sponsored by the STELLA-STAR¹ programme that has been examining differences in transport and institutions on both sides of the Atlantic. Consequently many of the chapters examine institutional issues from a comparative European and North American perspective which is also a unique contribution of the book. Further, it is surprising how thin the comparative transport literature is in general and in particular with respect to institutional differences and similarities between these two highly developed parts of the world. As a prelude to this aspect of the book, a subsequent part of the Introduction presents a brief comparative analysis of transport and sustainability differences between these regions. The penultimate part of the Introduction describes each chapter, placing them in the context of the institutional dimensions of sustainable transport analysis, while the concluding part ties the several themes of the book together in a futures oriented assessment.

Institutions and institutional issues in sustainable transport

Institutions are the rules and rule structures that guide both public and private action (North, 1990); they can be both formal and informal. From North’s perspective, they are the rules of the ‘game’. As such, institutions describe how society operates and is maintained. Organizations on the other hand are the agents that act and thus ‘play the game’.

The new institutional economists provide a framework for analysing institutions and the ways in which they may either positively or negatively impact decisions and behaviour. Williamson (1994) views institutions as being of four types: informal, formal, governance, and resource allocation/ employment related. Examples of informal institutions are deeply embedded values, norms, practices, customs, and traditions. These are powerful conditioners of behaviour but for the most part change very slowly. However, when an informal institution does change, there may be rapid and profound behaviour changes, for example, the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 have significantly impacted privacy and accessibility norms in the US and other parts of the world, and these in turn are impacting the cost and ease of passenger and freight transport. This is a case where an extreme event impacted informal institutions almost immediately, and with significant and measurable impacts on the transport system and its operation.

Formal institutions are Williamson’s second type of institution. These are codified statutes, constitutional provisions, laws, regulations, and high level administrative orders. They focus on such things as property rights, judicial, and administrative orders. Formal institutions may change more quickly than informal ones, but tend to be stable over fairly long periods (decades) unless there are radical changes in their environment. For example, civil and water rights legislation in the US and in other countries has involved decades of debate and multiple trial and error efforts at legislation that have at best produced modest incremental change. Efforts to alter land-use regulations to address the so-called inefficiencies of sprawl have been underway for many years in the US but again with modest outcome. In short, formal institutions tend to be quite resilient and resistant to change.

Governance institutions define the third type of institution. Here institutional change occurs with greater frequency, often measured in years rather than decades. Governance institutions are rules (minor laws, administrative orders, regulations, and policy directives) that function to maintain or change how government and related organizations, such as planning and zoning boards, conduct business and direct transactions with other actors and agents.

Finally, the diverse actions and behaviour patterns of multiple actors in the decision environment, ranging from government agencies to firms and to non-profit associations (for example, neighbourhood organizations) form the fourth type of institution. Institutions at this level are about allocating resources to operations designed to impact individual and organizational outcomes. These institutions are changing almost continuously because they have widely distributed consequences. However, the consequences at the societal level are small and often relatively insignificant in terms of long-run outcomes. They involve decisions and actions about production, delivery, resource acquisition and use, and process, and occur in a context measured in days, weeks, and months. Making decisions about a zoning variance request or a fare level change for a transit system are examples of the fourth level of institution.

Williamson’s typology provides a framework for examining policy arenas as well as relationships between different arenas and, thus, a way to identify and understand the forces that are guiding action and behaviour in specific transport contexts. It also provides a way to identify and even define efficiency, effectiveness and equity problems, and policy intervention strategies. As such it provides a framework for sorting out the impact of various institutional variables, providing policy insight and offering a framework for helping define what the institutional approach is. Below we offer descriptions of a number of institutional issues in sustainable transport, and related data and methodological issues that are often different from those found in more traditional transportation analyses.

Thus far we have discussed institutions in a general way. Here we bring them into the form of specific values, beliefs, cultural parameters and regulations in keeping with Williamson’s institutional typology. These rules and rule structures guide the way countries, regions and other jurisdictions implement, avoid implementing or thinking about concepts and actions related to liberalization, infrastructure financing, privatization, deregulation, the role of markets, the role of the state, technology standards and technological change, intergovernmental relations, and globalization. The institutions that define how these processes and roles are played influence greatly how a country or region ‘does business’ and thus, in turn, the nature of transport systems and how they are used and operated. In a sense, at any given time, institutions may be viewed as defining a crude equilibrium on how a country or region operates as well as where ‘cracks’ in the equilibrium are occurring.

There are several aspects, components and processes of (and related to) transport systems that are difficult to deal with and therefore resist change because of institutional issues. As such they contribute to the maintenance of less than optimal transport systems. The examples listed below provide the reader with a sample of these and the varied contexts within which they occur. They are derived from the multiple interviews the authors have had with their academic and public policy colleagues at the various STELLA-STAR sponsored research workshops. We have classified these examples according to the four types of institutions mentioned above, but also categorised them by the time dimension.

Long term (type 1 and 2 institutions)

• harmonizing economic development and environmental protection goals;
• institutional friction hindering cross border flows;
• territorialism and intergovernmental relations;
• barriers to adopting new technology;
• power conflicts among stakeholders;
• barriers to efficient pricing;
• achieving cooperation among actors to support intermodalism;
• decoupling the prestige of owning versus rational use of the private car;
• willingness to pay on part of public and users;
• consumer preferences for unsustainable lifestyles.

Short to medium term (type 3 and 4 institutions)

• achieving accountability among public transport operators;
• coping with ambiguous regulations;
• managing intergovernmental relations;
• managing freight and passenger transportation interaction;
• managing interest groups;
• adopting improvements based on research findings;
• goal definitions of organizations;
• land-use variances and managing land-use and zoning codes.

While these are problems within a country or region they are amplified when more than one country or region is part of the transportation issue because there often is considerable institutional dissonance when countries with their different values, regulations, standards, etc. are involved. This is easily understood when one considers the differences between North America and Europe on some transport related issues, and even between the United States and Canada! Some examples of the differences between North America and Europe are:

General institutional differences

• more national borders in Europe;
• lack of uniform ‘rules’ or institutions in Europe despite EU integration;
• decentralized decision-making is greater in the US;
• Europe is still figuring out integration – many problems derive from this;
• different histories of institutional development, e.g., public-private organizations;
• role of government is perceived differently, American exceptionalism (Lipset, 1996) versus stronger welfare state preferences in Europe;
• greater ability of government to implement in Europe;
• privatization approaches are different.

Differences in transport related institutions

• the US is more committed to road use and road access goals;
• Europe is more prepared to use transport pricing concepts;
• taxation of fuel is much higher in Europe;
• public transport availability is higher in Europe.

Differences in land use

• land-use planning has been devolved to minor units of government in the US;
• Europe is more densely populated;
• different urban location patterns, for example, sprawl dominates in the US;
• land-use regulation is stronger in Europe;
• differences in consumer preferences with respect to transport;
• levels of car ownership and related lifestyles;
• lower public transport demand in North America;
• barriers to sustainable transport greater in the US.

In summary, significant differences exist in how North Americans and Europeans use, create and operate the surface transport system. These differences are partly the result of different geographies and physical conditions but most are due to different histories and thus to different institutions that have evolved over time. For example, Europe has a medieval history while North America, a colonial frontier society, was heavily influenced by its revolutionary history. While a high impact revolution is clearly not solely a phenomena of the US, the American case differs from the revolutions in France, Germany and Spain in terms of impact on institutions and culture because the US revolution was coincident with the formation of the American state and its culture.

Methodological and data issues in institutional analysis

The role of institutions in transport analysis may be viewed in terms of independent variables that help to explain some dependent variables such as traffic congestion, infrastructure investment, operational procedures, policy intervention or lack of intervention, for example, pricing and privatization. Institutions also may serve as control variables from a planning systems and implementation research perspective. However, the institutional variable is very rich because of its complexity and its multiple forms as described above in the discussion on the institutional typology. Consequently, institutional variables tend to be seen as ‘softer’ and more difficult to quantify compared to other variables typically used in transportation analysis. For example, regulations are a major form of institution but to ‘measure’ or even inventory regulations the investigator must not only work through huge databases that define and describe them, but also interpret how they have been implemented and whether there is implementation consistency.

Further, in cross-national studies, context comparability or differences need to be established and validated. For these reasons the methodologies used in institutional analysis are broader than those typically found in transportation studies where regression and operations research models often dominate. For example, in-depth case studies and loosely structured policy-maker interviews, scenario analysis, qualitative modelling, focus group interviews, historical interpretive analysis are important methods where institutions are involved. Thus it should be no surprise that when institutions are an object of study in transportation research the focus is more interdisciplinary and, in addition to engineering and economics, includes fields such as political economy, sociology, psychology, social psychology, anthropology, and history.

Despite the complexity of the institutional variable and the need to focus on more interpretive and qualitative methods, the nature of institutions does not negate using more formal and quantitative analyses. Questions about institutional differences between countries often lead to hypotheses about differences in transportation flows and costs which can, of course, be examined using a variety of standard transportation models. Thus, despite the softer nature of institutions, it may be possible to structure institutional hypotheses using binary or categori...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Preface
• Contributors
• List of abbreviations
• Chapter 1: Institutional dimensions of sustainable transport
• Chapter 2: Public and private initiatives in infrastructure provision1
• Chapter 3: Myths and taboos in transport policy1
• Chapter 4: Overcoming barriers to the implementation of sustainable transport1
• Chapter 5: Barriers to transport pricing
• Chapter 6: Alternative implementation strategies for radical transport schemes
• Chapter 7: A research agenda for institutions, regulations and markets in transportation and infrastructure
• Chapter 8: A comparison of work and nonwork travel: the US and Great Britain
• Chapter 9: Institutional issues in on-street parking
• Chapter 10: Institutional issues in transatlantic aviation
• Chapter 11: Evolution of transport institutions that facilitate international trade1
• Chapter 12: Impact of border regime institutions on transport network development in Central and Eastern Europe
• Chapter 13: A conceptual framework for analyzing policy-maker’s and industry roles and perspectives in the context of sustainable goods transportation
• Chapter 14: Intermodal transport markets and sustainability in Europe