Search results

Transport is the main enabler of tourism, but also one of its main sources of environmental impact. This paradoxical condition is even more controversial if considering the reluctancy of policymakers to introduce traffic management strategies, as they fear possible drops in tourism demand. This chapter addresses the ‘tourism-traffic paradox’ as a wicked problem and explores adequate and efficient policy interventions to foster sustainable mobility in Alpine destinations, minimising rebound effects in tourism demand. The chapter is focussed on the exemplary case of the Dolomites World Heritage Site (WHS), as this Italian area has experienced a long-lasting process of evidence-informed decision-making in transport, with two pilot actions for traffic calming in 2017 and 2018. The main goal of those actions was to shift the modal choices of tourists, to optimise the traffic network use and to minimise environmental impacts. The policy interventions were rooted in a sustainability governance approach, that is, they were creating a government-led network of stakeholders, including several academic experts, involved in the transport planning and monitoring phase. Advantages and disadvantages of this government-led network to solve the tourism-traffic paradox are discussed in the chapter.

This study aims to identify the determinants of transport mode choice and the constraints on shifting freight in New Zealand (NZ) from road to rail and/or coastal shipping, and to quantify the trade-off between factors affecting shippers’ perceptions, to assist in increasing the share of freight moved by non-road transport modes.

A revealed preference survey of 183 freight shippers, including small and medium enterprises and freight agents in NZ, is used to investigate whether freight shippers’ characteristics affect their ranked preference for attributes related to mode choice and modal shift. Additionally, a rank-ordered logistic (ROL) model is estimated using the ranking data.

The results reveal several distinct types of transport mode choice behaviour within the sample and show how the preferences for timeliness, cost, accessibility, damage and loss, customer service, and suitability vary between industry groups and business types. Also, the ROL method allows us to identify heterogeneity in preferences for mode choice and mode shift factors for freight within NZ.

The results imply that NZ shippers ranked transport time as the most significant constraint upon distributing goods by rail, while accessibility and load size were the most significant constraints upon using coastal shipping. The study also identifies how NZ shippers’ modal shift constraints vary according to the firm’s individual or logistical characteristics.

This study informs freight transport policy makers about the needs of NZ shippers by providing quantitative measures of the intensity of preference for the various mode choice factors.

Those involved in freight transport have a better basis for formulating transport policy.

To explore people’s attitudes towards bus service quality and bus use.

The study is a natural experiment that uses primary data collected from questionnaires, which were conducted to Maltese residents. The information was collected two months before the bus service reform and one year afterwards.

Results cast doubt on whether current policy measures regarding bus service quality are adequate to contribute to a modal shift from car to bus use.

Provides insight on whether current policy measures are sufficient in order to obtain an increase in bus patronage.

The case study of the Malta bus service reform provides an opportunity to study people’s attitudes in a quasi-experimental situation. Additionally, the research sheds light on the possible impact that bus service reforms have on people’s attitudes.

In the last two decades, different policy initiatives have been set up to increase the share of intermodal freight transport through a modal shift. In the design of these policies, often critical break-even distances are set, showing the cost or price competitiveness of intermodal transport to delineate transport routes that qualify for such a modal shift. In this chapter, we discuss to which extent such break-even distances can be generalized on a larger scale and how they are calculated.

We use two price-based models to calculate break-even distances for an intermodal rail and an intermodal barge transport case. General break-even values do not show the price variation in the transport market and vagueness in the calculation of these values adds to this problem.

We find that for the inland waterway case, intermodal barge transport shows potential on shorter distances as well. In addition, different ways to lower the break-even distance are discussed and a framework for calculating break-even distances is suggested.

The research elaborates on break-even distances in a European context using price data which are fluctuating over time, location specific and often not publicly available.

Policy initiatives promoting intermodal transport should not focus solely on long distance transport. Moreover, evaluating the competitiveness of the intermodal sector solely on a price comparison dishonours its true potential.

This chapter challenges the current European policy on intermodal transport by showing the price competitiveness of intermodal transport in two cases.

Of the three ‘pillars of sustainability’, railways’ initial focus was on the economic pillar, having been developed in the nineteenth century to enable economic development and having struggled in the mid-twentieth century to maintain their economic sustainability in the face of competition from road and air transport. From the 1960s onwards, increased focus on and concern about social and environmental sustainability, together with rail’s comparatively high capacity and low environmental impact, has led to renewed interest in the role of rail in passenger and freight transport. Providing the necessary railway system capacity to enable a significant modal shift from air and (especially) road transport requires major investment, and there is a trade-off between the economic sustainability of these investments and the resulting social and environmental sustainability benefits. However, the railways should also benefit from the increased revenue resulting from improved services and could be supported by additional financial incentives to encourage modal shift. Similarly, there are different philosophies of and approaches to timetable planning and development, ranging from making the most economically sustainable use of resources to the provision of high-frequency, integrated ‘clockface’ timetables, providing passengers and freight users with an attractive range of travel and transport opportunities. Future sustainability, capacity, timetabling and other aspirations are set out in the Rail Safety and Standards Board’s Operational Philosophy for the GB Mainline Railway: these aspirations were developed in the context of Britain’s heavy rail system but are also more generally applicable.

On 24 January 2020, France informed WHO of three cases of novel coronavirus, all of whom had travelled from Wuhan, China. These three cases were the first confirmed cases in Europe. By 13 March 2020, Europe had become the epicentre of the pandemic with more reported cases and deaths than the rest of the world combined, apart from the People’s Republic of China. Many European countries like Italy, France and Germany took drastic actions and subsequently announced a lockdown, while other countries like the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden were much more hesitant to introduce such far-reaching safety measures. This chapter provides a literature overview of how the variation in such measures in Europe has ultimately resulted in changes in daily activities and travel behaviour during the pandemic. It focusses on five main themes: (i) reduction in mobility and activities, (ii) spatial-temporal adjustments in out-of-home activities in which people still participated, (iii) modal adjustments especially among people who used to travel by public transport before the pandemic, (iv) new out-of-home activities including new outdoor activities and (v) digital adaptations as several out-of-home activities were replaced by digital activities, with special attention to the experience of teleworking.