The Experts below are selected from a list of 312 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Paul Timms - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Urban Transport Policy transfer bottom up and top down perspectives
Transport Policy, 2011Co-Authors: Paul TimmsAbstract:The paper provides insights into the Urban Transport Policy transfer process, focusing particularly on the transfer of the Transport Policy within the EU. The themes of the paper are structured according to five of the "Dolowitz and Marsh questions": what is transferred?; why do actors engage in Policy transfer?; who are the key actors involved in the Policy transfer process?; from where are the lessons drawn?; and what restricts or facilitates the Policy transfer process? The methodological approach taken for considering each question involves two steps. Firstly, a "bottom-up" step considers the views of Policy transfer from a "city perspective", for which use is made of results from interviews recently carried out within the EU project "Transport Research Knowledge Centre" (TRKC). These interviews were intended to ascertain the information needs of seven "representatives" of European cities, all of whom were involved in the Cities Reference Group of the EU project "Citymobil". These seven cities have widely varying characteristics in terms of size and geographical location (across Europe). By discussing information needs, the interviewees provided many insights into the Transport Policy transfer process. Secondly, a "top-down" step considers the Policy transfer questions from an "EU perspective'; use here is made of various Transport Policy documents published by the European Commission (EC). For each of the five questions, "bottom-up" and "top-down" perspectives are examined and compared. The final section of the paper draws conclusions, providing a number of recommendations to both city authorities and the EU on how Urban Transport Policy transfer might be enhanced in the future.
-
Urban Transport Policy transfer: “bottom-up” and “top-down” perspectives
Transport Policy, 2011Co-Authors: Paul TimmsAbstract:The paper provides insights into the Urban Transport Policy transfer process, focusing particularly on the transfer of the Transport Policy within the EU. The themes of the paper are structured according to five of the "Dolowitz and Marsh questions": what is transferred?; why do actors engage in Policy transfer?; who are the key actors involved in the Policy transfer process?; from where are the lessons drawn?; and what restricts or facilitates the Policy transfer process? The methodological approach taken for considering each question involves two steps. Firstly, a "bottom-up" step considers the views of Policy transfer from a "city perspective", for which use is made of results from interviews recently carried out within the EU project "Transport Research Knowledge Centre" (TRKC). These interviews were intended to ascertain the information needs of seven "representatives" of European cities, all of whom were involved in the Cities Reference Group of the EU project "Citymobil". These seven cities have widely varying characteristics in terms of size and geographical location (across Europe). By discussing information needs, the interviewees provided many insights into the Transport Policy transfer process. Secondly, a "top-down" step considers the Policy transfer questions from an "EU perspective'; use here is made of various Transport Policy documents published by the European Commission (EC). For each of the five questions, "bottom-up" and "top-down" perspectives are examined and compared. The final section of the paper draws conclusions, providing a number of recommendations to both city authorities and the EU on how Urban Transport Policy transfer might be enhanced in the future.
Mark J Nieuwenhuijsen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
health impacts of Urban Transport Policy measures a guidance note for practice
Journal of transport and health, 2017Co-Authors: Haneen Khreis, Mark J NieuwenhuijsenAbstract:Abstract Background Urban Transport related exposures and practices are associated with a significant burden of morbidity and premature mortality, which could be prevented by changing current practices. Cities now have access to an increasingly wide range of Transport Policy measures which continue to expand. However, the health impacts of these measures are not always explicitly defined or well understood and therefore may not be sufficiently considered when selecting Policy measures. Aims The aim of this paper is to qualitatively review 64 different Transport Policy measures indexed in the Knowledgebase on Sustainable Urban Land use and Transport (KonSULT), and provide an indication of their potential health impacts, based on expert judgment. Results We report that key health impacts of Transport occur via pathways of motor vehicle crashes, traffic-related air pollution, noise, heat islands, lack of green space, physical inactivity, climate change and social exclusion and community severance. We systematically describe the expected health impacts of Transport Policy measures sourced from KonSULT and find that many, but not all, can have a positive impact on health. The magnitude of both the positive and negative impacts remains largely unknown and warrants further research and synthesis. Conclusions Urban Transport is responsible for a large mortality and morbidity burden and Policy measures that are beneficial to health need to be implemented to reduce this burden. There are considerable differences between these Policy measures in terms of potential health impacts and this should be considered in any Transport planning. It is important to monitor the health impacts of all Policy measures to provide further evidence on whether they work as expected or not, to ensure that the most cost-effective solutions, with the largest benefits and the smallest health risks, are being adopted.
-
health impacts of Urban Transport Policy measures sourced from konsult
Journal of transport and health, 2017Co-Authors: Haneen Khreis, Mark J NieuwenhuijsenAbstract:Background Urban Transport related exposures and practices are associated with a significant burden of morbidity and premature mortality, which could be prevented by changing current practices. Cities now have access to an increasingly wide range of Transport Policy measures which continue to expand. However, the health impacts of these measures are not always explicitly defined or well understood and therefore may not be sufficiently considered when selecting Policy measures. Methods The aim of this paper is to qualitatively review 64 different Transport Policy measures indexed in the Knowledgebase on Sustainable Urban Land use and Transport; KonSULT, and provide an indication of their potential health impacts, based on expert judgment. Results We report that key health impacts of Transport occur via 8 key pathways, namely: motor vehicle crashes, traffic-related air pollution, noise, heat islands, lack of green space, physical inactivity, climate change and social exclusion. We systematically describe the possible health impacts of Transport Policy measures sourced from KonSULT and find that many, but not all, can have a positive impact on health. The magnitude of both positive and negative impacts remains largely unknown and warrants further research and synthesis. Conclusions Urban Transport is responsible for a large mortality and morbidity burden and Policy measures that are beneficial to health need to be implemented to reduce this burden. There are considerable differences between these Policy measures in terms of potential health impacts and this should be considered in any Transport planning. It is important to monitor the health impacts of all Policy measures to provide further evidence on whether they work as expected or not, to ensure that the most cost-effective solutions, with the largest benefits and the smallest health risks, are being adopted.
Ann Jopson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
an option generation tool for potential Urban Transport Policy packages
Transport Policy, 2012Co-Authors: Charlotte Kelly, Simon Shepherd, Ann JopsonAbstract:Several studies have indicated that option generation – the development of a range of strategic Policy options to tackle identified Transport problems – is the weakest link in current Transport planning practice. Local authorities all too often limit themselves to pre-conceived solutions, focus on supply-side rather than demand-side polices, and are unaware of the potential of novel solutions. This is even more the case for the development of packages of Policy instruments, in which each can be expected to support the others by making it more effective or easier to implement.
-
research challenges in Urban Transport Policy
Transport Policy, 2003Co-Authors: Ann Jopson, Bryan MatthewsAbstract:1. IntroductionTransport is one of the most significant sources ofunsustainability in Urban areas. In European cities alone,traffic congestion costs in excess of e100B each year, localpollution and the resultant health impacts impose costs of asimilar magnitude, and there are around 20,000 fatalities onUrban roads each year. Many countries are now advocatingintegrated approaches to these problems, in which the fullrange of Transport Policy interventions (infrastructure,management, regulation, information and pricing) arecombined with land use, environmental and wider socialPolicy instruments (European Conference of Ministers ofTransport, 1995). Most of the constituent elements of thesestrategies are already available, but there is a serious lack ofdetailed understanding of the impacts of many of thesePolicy instruments and of their transferability to differentcontexts. Even more serious is the lack of understanding ofhow to design integrated strategies which most effectivelycombine infrastructure, management, regulation andpricing.Even where appropriately sustainable strategies areidentified, there are serious barriers to their implemen-tation. The recent ECMT report (European Conference ofMinisters of Transport, 2002) highlights poor Policyintegration and coordination, counterproductive insti-tutional roles, unsupportive regulatory frameworks, weak-nesses in pricing and poor data quality and quantity asreasons for the failure of most cities to pursue the policiesadvocated in its earlier report (European Conference ofMinisters of Transport, 1995).The papers in this special issue of Transport Policy are aselection of those presented at the inaugural conference of anew Special Interest Group (SIG) of the World Conferenceon Transport Research Society, SIG-10, which focuses onthese critical issues in Urban Transport Policy. Membershipof the SIG is open to anyone with an interest in research,teaching or practice in Urban Transport, and details can befound in the WCTRS section of the journal.When the new SIG was launched at the Ninth WorldConference in Seoul in July 2001, it was agreed that itsobjectives should be:† to increase our understanding of the performance ofTransport Policy instruments;† to determine the principles of Policy integration;† to develop good practice in the monitoring and appraisalof Policy instruments;† to identify good practice in the design, implementationand operation of Policy instruments; and† to develop interactive information tools to aid theunderstanding of Urban Transport Policy for students,practitioners and decision-makers.The inaugural conference, held in Leeds in July 2002,included sessions on all five of these themes, with a total of14 papers. Copies of the conference proceedings areavailable from the authors of this paper. The eight papersincluded in this special issue cover the range of themes,while in many cases addressing more than one of them. Inthis overview paper we have endeavoured to draw out thekey issues from these papers, while focusing on the researchchallenges which remain to be tackled. The structure of thepaper follows the five bullet points listed above, focusing inturn on the papers by Taylor and Ampt, Mackett et al.(Section 2); Geerlings and Stead (Section 3); Jones et al.,Nicolas et al. (Section 4); Gaffron, Ison and Rye (Section 5);and Litman (Section 6); but bringing in ideas from otherpapers where appropriate. We conclude by highlighting ourview of the key research challenges which lie ahead.2. Understanding the performance of Policy instrumentsOne of the most significant developments of the lastdecade has been the emergence of a much wider range ofPolicy instruments available to the Urban Transport planner.
Haneen Khreis - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
health impacts of Urban Transport Policy measures a guidance note for practice
Journal of transport and health, 2017Co-Authors: Haneen Khreis, Mark J NieuwenhuijsenAbstract:Abstract Background Urban Transport related exposures and practices are associated with a significant burden of morbidity and premature mortality, which could be prevented by changing current practices. Cities now have access to an increasingly wide range of Transport Policy measures which continue to expand. However, the health impacts of these measures are not always explicitly defined or well understood and therefore may not be sufficiently considered when selecting Policy measures. Aims The aim of this paper is to qualitatively review 64 different Transport Policy measures indexed in the Knowledgebase on Sustainable Urban Land use and Transport (KonSULT), and provide an indication of their potential health impacts, based on expert judgment. Results We report that key health impacts of Transport occur via pathways of motor vehicle crashes, traffic-related air pollution, noise, heat islands, lack of green space, physical inactivity, climate change and social exclusion and community severance. We systematically describe the expected health impacts of Transport Policy measures sourced from KonSULT and find that many, but not all, can have a positive impact on health. The magnitude of both the positive and negative impacts remains largely unknown and warrants further research and synthesis. Conclusions Urban Transport is responsible for a large mortality and morbidity burden and Policy measures that are beneficial to health need to be implemented to reduce this burden. There are considerable differences between these Policy measures in terms of potential health impacts and this should be considered in any Transport planning. It is important to monitor the health impacts of all Policy measures to provide further evidence on whether they work as expected or not, to ensure that the most cost-effective solutions, with the largest benefits and the smallest health risks, are being adopted.
-
health impacts of Urban Transport Policy measures sourced from konsult
Journal of transport and health, 2017Co-Authors: Haneen Khreis, Mark J NieuwenhuijsenAbstract:Background Urban Transport related exposures and practices are associated with a significant burden of morbidity and premature mortality, which could be prevented by changing current practices. Cities now have access to an increasingly wide range of Transport Policy measures which continue to expand. However, the health impacts of these measures are not always explicitly defined or well understood and therefore may not be sufficiently considered when selecting Policy measures. Methods The aim of this paper is to qualitatively review 64 different Transport Policy measures indexed in the Knowledgebase on Sustainable Urban Land use and Transport; KonSULT, and provide an indication of their potential health impacts, based on expert judgment. Results We report that key health impacts of Transport occur via 8 key pathways, namely: motor vehicle crashes, traffic-related air pollution, noise, heat islands, lack of green space, physical inactivity, climate change and social exclusion. We systematically describe the possible health impacts of Transport Policy measures sourced from KonSULT and find that many, but not all, can have a positive impact on health. The magnitude of both positive and negative impacts remains largely unknown and warrants further research and synthesis. Conclusions Urban Transport is responsible for a large mortality and morbidity burden and Policy measures that are beneficial to health need to be implemented to reduce this burden. There are considerable differences between these Policy measures in terms of potential health impacts and this should be considered in any Transport planning. It is important to monitor the health impacts of all Policy measures to provide further evidence on whether they work as expected or not, to ensure that the most cost-effective solutions, with the largest benefits and the smallest health risks, are being adopted.
Charlotte Kelly - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
an option generation tool for potential Urban Transport Policy packages
Transport Policy, 2012Co-Authors: Charlotte Kelly, Simon Shepherd, Ann JopsonAbstract:Several studies have indicated that option generation – the development of a range of strategic Policy options to tackle identified Transport problems – is the weakest link in current Transport planning practice. Local authorities all too often limit themselves to pre-conceived solutions, focus on supply-side rather than demand-side polices, and are unaware of the potential of novel solutions. This is even more the case for the development of packages of Policy instruments, in which each can be expected to support the others by making it more effective or easier to implement.
-
the principles of integration in Urban Transport strategies
Transport Policy, 2006Co-Authors: Charlotte Kelly, Simon ShepherdAbstract:Integration as a principle in Urban Transport Policy is frequently advocated but rarely defined. We suggest a range of types of integration, and highlight the problems in developing an effective integrated strategy, given the number of variables involved. We argue that integration should be designed to serve agreed objectives of Transport Policy, rather than being an objective in its own right. We then consider the principles for designing an effective integrated strategy. We define the concept of synergy, which is often advocated as a benefit of integration, and discuss whether it, and other aggregation benefits short of true synergy, is achievable. We then consider the alternative approach of using integration to overcome barriers, an approach, which is likely to be in conflict with pursuit of synergy, but more likely to lead to readily implemented strategies. We then review a number of examples where these principles have been applied, and investigate them to assess whether synergy has been demonstrated. Generally we find little evidence of synergy in outcome indicators. We conclude with some more general guidance on approaches to integration.
-
the principles of integration in Urban Transport strategies
10th World Conference on Transport ResearchWorld Conference on Transport Research SocietyIstanbul Technical University, 2006Co-Authors: Charlotte Kelly, Simon ShepherdAbstract:Integration as a principle in Urban Transport Policy is frequently advocated but rarely defined. We suggest a range of types of integration, and highlight the problems in developing an effective integrated strategy, given the number of variables involved. We argue that integration should be designed to serve agreed objectives of Transport Policy, rather than being an objective in its own right. We then consider the principles for designing an effective integrated strategy. We define the concept of synergy, which is often advocated as a benefit of integration, and discuss whether it, and other aggregation benefits short of true synergy, are achievable. We then consider the alternative approach of using integration to overcome barriers, an approach which is likely to be in conflict with pursuit of synergy, but more likely to lead to readily implemented strategies. We then review a number of examples where these principles have been applied, and investigate them to assess whether synergy has been demonstrated. Generally we find little evidence of synergy in outcome indicators. We conclude with some more general guidance on approaches to integration.
