GHG EMISSIONS, URBAN MOBILITY, AND MORPHOLOGY ■ 99consumer preferences for urban transport. Th e transport mode split for New
York City in 2005 shown in table 4.2 represents a state of equilibrium. It is
important to know what factors could change this equilibrium to a new state
that would be more favorable for GHG reductions.
Consumers’ Demand for Transport
Th e loss of transit share over the past few decades in most of the world’s major
cities has to be acknowledged. Even in Singapore transit mode share declined
from 55 percent of commuters in 1990 to 52.4 percent in 2000^3 (Singapore
Department of Statistics 2000). Th is decrease is striking because Singapore
has had the most consistent transport policy over two decades favoring tran-
sit, including strict limits on car ownership, and has been a world pioneer for
congestion pricing using advanced technology. In addition, Singapore has
always had excellent coordination between land use and transport investments.
Although the preceding section has shown that there is an overwhelming case
for increasing transit mode to reduce GHG emissions, consumer choice seems
to follow the opposite trends. It is therefore important to understand why tran-
sit is losing ground in so many cities and what alternative strategies exist and in
which type of cities the trend could possibly be reversed.
Consumers’ decisions to use one mode of transport over others depend on
three main factors:
- Cost
- Speed
- Convenience, as determined by frequency and reliability of service and
comfort
For low-income commuters, the cost of transport is the major consideration.
For very low-income commuters, walking is oft en the only aff ordable option,
which signifi cantly lowers their ability to take advantage of the large labor mar-
ket off ered by large cities. In Mumbai, for instance, about 4 million people walk
to work every day (about 45 percent of the active population). Middle- and
low-income users above extreme poverty are the prime customers for transit,
as buying and maintaining a car is beyond the means of most of these, although
subsidized fares frequently exist to make transit more aff ordable. However, in
numerous middle- and high-income countries, some cities retain a signifi cant
number of transit users who are middle or high income—for instance, Hong
Kong, London, New York City, Paris, and Singapore, among others. How these
cities have managed to maintain a high use of transit among affl uent house-
holds will be described in the next section.