Historically, disjointed transport and urban planning practices in growing cities mean that relatively little effort is put into designing communities integrated with transport systems.

The overall objective is to achieve compatibility between a proposed and non-static land-use plan, and the transport facilities, which will serve that particular urban structure. Apart from the identification of problem areas, the studies should identify the risks or incompatible alternatives and make the necessary recommendations.

It is possible, for example that a particular land-use strategy will result in the necessity to build transport infrastructure which may be unacceptable for economic, environmental or other reasons. In this case it is the task for the outcome to give a recommendation for the revision of the land-use plan accordingly.  The transport development plans are not developed in isolation but rather in a climate of dialogue.  The establishment and progress of this dialogue is essential to the success of the outcomes.

The overall objective must be to achieve compatibility between land-use planning and infrastructure (transport facilities) that serve the urban structure.  The transport development masterplans cannot be developed in isolation – but rather in a climate of dialogue between urban transport planners, transport engineers, RMA planners, urban designers, central / local government officials and other stakeholders – all of which is essential to the success of the outcomes. 

Any study will need to use simple and understandable procedures – as the simplicity of the methods used goes a long way towards bridging the gap between the planners and engineers on one hand and the stakeholders such as local politicians and administrators.  In this way a transport system compatible with the proposed land-use structure and the urban form can be established to meet the objectives of all.

An iterative process is adopted whereby both land-use and transport strategies are revised after the evaluation stage and the whole process stopped when a plan is able to satisfy predicted demand whilst preserving the environmental quality of urban life.

“As a Mayor, one of your greatest challenges is to plan and invest wisely in infrastructure for sustainable urban transport. Transport plays a crucial role in urban development by providing access for people to education, markets, employment, recreation, health care and other key services”. – Carlos Felipe Pardo (ITDP Colombia)

Success must be derived by transcending the political changes nationally, but encompassing the combined requirements of all stakeholders, and therefore the Masterplan may need to exist at a City Mayoral or Transport Agency level to create this sense of vision and permanency.

In order to return urban space to people and to create more liveable cities, decision makers in our key cities and urban areas urgently need to change the direction of urban transport development toward a more sustainable future. We need to be providing increasing levels of public transport accessibility and intensifying the land use in the urban core.

Establishing a sustainable urban transport system requires a comprehensive and integrated approach to policymaking and decision-making, with the aim of developing affordable, economically viable, people-oriented, and environment-friendly transport systems. This must be coupled with mixed land-use development and land-use intensification in the urban core that provides for density of people for access to mass transit – but conversely provides for reduced travel need by providing housing and employment within urban areas.

One way to address the core issues is to analyse it from the standpoint of “where” people should be in transport (where we should “push” them to) and from which modes we should “pull” them. Alternatively, a service driven approach is how to implement sustainable urban transport by applying the four measures of: public transport, non-motorised transport, transport demand management, and Transit Oriented Development (TOD).

The term TOD can be defined in several ways; but most would agree that the characteristics of a ‘neighbourhood’ around a TOD should account for the need to seek greener means of transportation for as many people as possible in a safe environment; that a station, and its walkable surroundings, are the focus of the development; that a vertical shift is achieved in order to increase population density and commercial activities are fostered through mixed land use to attract people to the area.

Developing a vision for sustainable and resilient urban centres and transport networks is one thing. Delivering and implementing them is more complex and requires fundamental changes across governance and leadership, policy, and ultimately societal behaviours and accepted norms.

Our current institutions and agencies are under significant and growing pressure – to manage acute issues such as housing, growth, traffic congestion and water quality. The longer term, chronic stressors such as climate change risk and sustainability are acknowledged by many. However, we often struggle and fail to adopt integrated plans and solutions.

These solutions often demand a re-think of accepted ‘legacy’ ways of doing things, which can sometimes challenge the wisdom of past investment in large infrastructure solutions. For example, large urban highway projects that simply move congestion from one point to another lock in auto-dependency for generations and provide little capacity for public or active transport – this is ‘yesterdays’ approach to the issues – We cannot build our way out of congestion…

Addressing this fundamental challenge requires us to develop and maintain a clear, future-focussed vision that allows for flexibility and change – one that is unwavering in its quest for resilience, sustainability and equity. Four things would assist in advancing this:

• Capacity and Resourcing
• Capability and Decision Making
• Alignment of Policy and Legislation
• Data

To get new answers we need new processes.  The Integrated Masterplanning process described for the combined and collaborative design of the urban environment and transport system is one such process. 

Integration of disparate parties is a challenge to the provision of great multi-modal outcomes.  We need to provide better and more desirable cycling and walking infrastructure – with purposeful journeys as the desired outcome, not just pleasurable trips.  International models show us how we can design new suburbs in a different way to put walking and cycling at the heart of the community.

Technology and behavioural change may help us to change the way that our communities move – will we make the right policy decisions to ensure that Mobility as a Service, e-bikes, autonomous vehicles and other future technological developments are directed to our use?  Urban form is a large part of this process – ensuring that population densities support mass transit options.  Making ‘mode neutral’ investments that lead us away from the ‘freedom’ once provided by the motor vehicle, to a new ‘freedom’ provided by climate friendly transport options that enable us to meet a Carbon Zero future.