‘Peak Car Use’: Understanding the Demise of Automobile

W o r l d T r a n s p o r t P o l i c y a n d P r a c t i c e V o l u m e 1 7 . 2 J u n e 2 0 1 1

31

‘PeakCarUse’:UnderstandingtheDemiseofAutomobileDependencePeterNewmanandJeffKenworthyCurtinUniversitySustainabilityPolicy(CUSP)InstitutePerth,WesternAustraliaIntroduction

In2009theBrookings Institutionwerethefirst to recognise a new phenomenon inthe world’s developed cities – declines incar use (Puentes and Tomer, 2009). Thispapersummarisestherecentdatacoveringthis new phenomenon of ‘peak car use’and seeks to understand why it ishappening. It firstpresents the datawhich are confirmingthis trend in cities inthe US, Australia andeight other nationstogether with some ofthe data from ourGlobal Cities Databasethat were suggestingthe possibility of thistrend. Peak car usesuggests that we arewitnessing the end ofbuilding cities aroundcars – at least in thedeveloped world. Inthe 1980’s we calledthis kind of citybuilding automobiledependence (Newmanand Kenworthy, 1989).The peak car usephenomenon suggestswe may now bewitnessing the demise of automobiledependenceincities.Thepaperthereforesets out to examine six possible causes ofpeak car use before making a generalconclusion and setting out some of theimplications for the professions whomanageourcities.

TheDataonCarUseTrends.

Puentes and Tomer (2009) first picked upthe trend in per capita car use starting in2004 inUScities.Theywereable to showthat this trend was occurring in most UScitiesandby2010wasevident inabsolutedeclines in car use. The data aresummarisedinFigure1.

Figure 1. Peaking of US vehicle miles oftravel.Stanley andBarrett (2010) founda similartrendwas obvious in Australian cities andthatthepeakhadcomeatasimilartime–2004 ‐ and car use per capita at least


32

seemed to be trending down ever since.TheirdataareshowninFigure2.

Figure 2. Peakingof car use inAustraliancitiesInapre‐publicationpaperMillard‐BallandSchipper (2010) examine the trends ineight industrialised countries thatdemonstrate what they call ‘peak travel’.Theyconcludethat:‘Despite the substantial cross nationaldifferences, one striking commonalityemerges: travel activity has reached aplateau in all eight countries in thisanalysis. The plateau is even morepronouncedwhen considering only privatevehicle use, which has declined in recentyearsinmostoftheeightcountries….Mostaggregate energy forecasts and manyregional travel demand models are basedonthecoreassumptionthattraveldemandwillcontinuetoriseinlinewithincome.Aswe have shown in the paper, thisassumptionisonethatplannersandpolicymakersshouldtreatwithextremecaution.’

TheGlobalCitiesDatabase(KenworthyandLaube, 2001; Kenworthy et al 1999) hasbeen expanding its global reach since the

first data were collected in the 1970’s.While the 2005/2010 data are yet to becomplete the first signsofadecline incarusecanbegleanedfrompreviousdataandwerefirstrecognisedbyusinNewmanandKenworthy (1999) and Kenworthy andLaube (1999)when itwas seen that citiesinthedevelopedworldgrewincarusepercapita in the1960’sby42%, in the1970’sby 26%, and the 1980’s by 23%.Our newdatanowshowthattheperiod1995‐2005had a growth in car use per capita of just5.1%, which is consistent with the abovedataonpeakcaruse.iFigure 3 summarises the changes in carvehiclekilometrespercapitaincitiesinthedeveloped world over the 45 year periodfrom 1960 to 2005. It shows thepercentage growth in four decades for allthe cities combined. It is clear that in thissample of cities in the USA, Canada,AustraliaandEuropethatthegrowthincaruse is slowing down and is likely to


33

continueintothe21stcenturyindevelopedcities.In the twenty‐six cities that comprise the1995‐2005 percentage increase in car vkt

per capita we are beginning to see somecities that have actually declined. SomeEuropeancities showthispattern: Londonhasdeclined1.2%,Stockholm3.7%,Vienna7.6%,Zurich4.7%. IntheUS,Atlantawentdown 10.1%, Houston 15.2% (both fromextraordinarily high levels of car use in1995), Los Angeles declined 2.0% and SanFrancisco4.8%.Peakcaruseappearstobehappening.Itisa major historical discontinuity that waslargely unpredicted by most urbanprofessionals and academics. So what iscausingthistooccur?ThePossibleCausesof‘PeakCarUse’.

Thefollowingsixfactorsareexaminedandthentheiroverlapsand interdependenciesareexploredafterwards:

1. HittingtheMarchettiWall2. TheGrowthofPublicTransport3. TheReversalofUrbanSprawl

4. TheAgeingofCities5. The Growth of a Culture of

Urbanism6. TheRiseinFuelPrices

Figure 3. Car use growth trends indevelopedcities from1960 to2005usingGlobalCitiesDatabase.(seeEndnote1fordetails).1.HittingtheMarchettiWallThomas Marchetti was the first torecognise that all cities have a similaraverage travel timebudgetof aroundonehour (Marchetti, 1994). This seems to bebiologically based in humans – they don’tlike to takemoreoutof theirday thananhour just getting to their work and backhome. Thus we have applied this to thetechnology of city building (Newman andKenworthy, 1999) to show that citiesalways hit the wall when they are ‘onehourwide’.A Walking City is based around peoplewalkingatanaverageof5‐8km/h thus inone hour people can walk 5‐8 km;therefore aWalkingCity canexpand to5‐8kmwidebefore itbecomesdysfunctional


34

to go any further. A Transit City based onanaveragespeedof30km/hfortrainscanextendto30kmwide.AnAutomobileCitybasedon an average speedof 50 km/h incars can reach out to 50 km wide beforetheaveragetraveltimewillbemorethanisacceptable tomost people. As cities havefilled with cars the limit to the spread ofthe city has become more and moreapparent with the politics of road ragebecomingabiggerpartofeverydaylifeandmanypeoplejustchoosingtolivecloserin.Fast trains havebeen theonly technology

to break this car‐based limit, though theyarelimitedintheiroriginsanddestinationsincitiesbuiltaroundcarsandsoonhitthewallalso.The travel time budget limit is observableinmostAustralianandUScitieswherethepoliticsoftransporthasbeenbasedontheinability of getting sufficient road capacityto enable the travel time budget to bemaintained under one hour. Thus therehas been a shift to providing faster andhigher capacity public transport based onthe growing demand to go around traffic‐filled corridorsor to servicegrowing innerareadistricts.Atthesametimethepolitics

ofplanning in thepastdecadehas turnedirrevocably to enabling greaterredevelopment and regeneration ofsuburbs at higher densities closer in towheremost destinations are located. TheAutomobileCityseemstohavehitthewall.2.TheGrowthofPublicTransportThe extraordinary revival of publictransportinAustralianandAmericancitiesisdemonstratedinFigures4and5.

Figure 4. Recent strong growth in UStransituseanddecliningcaruse.The global cities data currently beingupdated show that in tenmajor US citiesfrom1995 to 2005 transit boardings grew12% from 60 to 67 per capita, fiveCanadian cities grew8% from140 to151,fourAustralian capital cities rose6% from90 to 96 boardings per capita, while fourmajor European cities grew from 380 to447 boardings per capita or 18%. Thegrowth in transit was always seen bytransport planners as a small part of thetransport task and car use growth wouldcontinue unabated. However, the


35

exponential relationship between car useandpublictransportuseasshowninFigure6 indicates how significant the impact oftransit can be. By increasing transit percapita the use of cars per capita ispredictedtogodownexponentially.Thisistheso‐called‘transitleverage’effect(Neff,1996; Newman et al, 2008). Thus evensmallincreasesintransitcanbegintoputalargedentincarusegrowthandeventuallywillcauseittopeakanddecline.Figure 5. Growth in transit use inAustraliancitiessince1999

3.TheReversalofUrbanSprawlThe turning back in of cities leads toincreases in density rather than thecontinuingdeclinesthathavecharacterizedthe growth phase of Automobile Cities inthe past 50 years. The data on densitysuggest that the peak in decline hasoccurredandcitiesarenowcomingbackinfaster than they are going out. Table 1(p.37)containsdataonasampleofcitiesinAustralia, the USA, Canada and Europeshowingurbandensitiesfrom1960to2005

which clearly demonstrate this turningpoint in the more highly automobile‐dependent cities. In the small sample ofEuropeancities,densitiesarestilldecliningdue to “shrinkage” or absolute reductionsin population, but the data clearly showtherateofdeclineinurbandensityslowingdown and almost stabilising as re‐urbanisationoccursThe relationship between density and caruse is alsoexponential as shown in Figure7. If a city begins to slowly increase itsdensity then the impact can be more

extensive on car use than expected.Densityisamultiplierontheuseoftransitand walking/cycling, as well as reducingthe length of travel. Increases in densitycanresultingreatermixingoflandusestomeet peoples’ needs nearby. This is seen,for example, in the return of smallsupermarkets to the central businessdistrictsofcitiesasresidentialpopulationsincrease and demand local shoppingopportunitieswithinaneasywalk.Overall,this reversal of urban sprawl willunderminethegrowthincaruse.


36

Figure 6. The transit leverage effect indevelopedcities,1995

4.TheAgeingofCities

Citiesinthedevelopedworldareallageing

inthesensethattheaverageageofpeopleliving in the cities has been gettingolder.Peoplewhoareoldertendto

drive less. Cities therefore that areageing are likely to show less caruse. This is likely to be a factor but

the fact that all American andAustralian cities began decliningaround 2004 suggests there were

other factors at work than justageing as not all cities in theseplaces are ageing at similar rates.

The younger cities of Brisbane andPerth in Australia still peaked in2004.

Figure 7. Rapid decline in car usewithincreasingurbandensity,1995


37

Table 1. Trends in urbandensity in someUS, Canadian, Australian and Europeancities,1960‐2005

5.TheGrowthofaCultureofUrbanismOne of the reasons that older aged citiesdrive less is that older people move backintocitiesfromthesuburbs–theso‐called‘emptynester’ syndrome. Thiswas largelynot predicted at the height of theAutomobile City growth phase nor was itseen that the children growing up in thesuburbswouldbeginflockingbackintothecitiesratherthancontinuingthe lifeofcardependence (Leinberger, 2007). This hasnowbeenunderwayforoveradecadeandthe data presented by the BrookingsInstitution suggest that it is a majorcontributor to the peak car usephenomenon (Puentes and Tomer, 2009).They suggest this is not a fashion but astructural change based on theopportunitiesthatareprovidedbygreaterurbanism. The cultural change associated

with this urbanism is reflected in theFriends TV series compared to the FatherKnows Best suburban TV series of the

earliergeneration.Theshift inattitudestocar dependence is also apparent inAustralia(NewmanandNewman,2006).6.TheRiseinFuelPricesThe vulnerability of outer suburbs toincreasingfuelpriceswasnotedinthefirstfuel crisis in 1973‐4 and in all subsequentfuelcrisisperiodswhenfuelpricevolatilitywas clearly reflected in real estate values(Fels andMunson, 1974; Romanos, 1978).Thereturnto‘normal‘aftereachcrisisledmany commentators to believe that thelinkbetweenfuelandurbanformmaynotbeasdramaticasfirstpresentedbypeoplelike us (Newman and Kenworthy, 1989;1999). However the impact of $140 abarrel oil on real estate in the USdramatically led to the GFC (sub‐primemortgagees were unable to pay theirmortgageswhenfuelpricestripled).

Cities 1960Urbandensitypersons/ha

1970Urbandensitypersons/ha





Brisbane 21.0 11.3 10.2 9.8 9.6 9.7Melbourne 20.3 18.1 16.4 14.9 13.7 15.6Perth 15.6 12.2 10.8 10.6 10.9 11.3Sydney 21.3 19.2 17.6 16.8 18.9 19.5Chicago 24.0 20.3 17.5 16.6 16.8 16.9Denver 18.6 13.8 11.9 12.8 15.1 14.7Houston 10.2 12.0 8.9 9.5 8.8 9.6LosAngeles 22.3 25.0 24.4 23.9 24.1 27.6NewYork 22.5 22.6 19.8 19.2 18.0 19.2Phoenix 8.6 8.6 8.5 10.5 10.4 10.9SanDiego 11.7 12.1 10.8 13.1 14.5 14.6SanFrancisco 16.5 16.9 15.5 16.0 20.5 19.8Vancouver 24.9 21.6 18.4 20.8 21.6 25.2

Frankfurt 87.2 74.6 54.0 47.6 47.6 45.9Hamburg 68.3 57.5 41.7 39.8 38.4 38.0Munich 56.6 68.2 56.9 53.6 55.7 55.0Zurich 60.0 58.3 53.7 47.1 44.3 43.0


38

Despite global recession the 21st centuryhas been faced by a consolidation of fuelprices at the upper end of thoseexperienced in the last 50 years ofAutomobile City growth. Most oilcommentators including oil companiesnowadmit to theendof theeraof cheapoil,even ifnot fullyaccepting thepeakoilphenomenon (Newman, Beatley andBoyer, 2009). The elasticities associatedwith fuel price are obviously going tocontribute to reducing car use growththough few economists would havesuggested these price increases wereenough to cause peak car use that set inwellbeforethe2008peakof$140abarrel.InterdependenciesinSixFactorsIt is not hard to see that the six factorsinvolvedinunderstandingpeakcaruseareallinterwovenandinterdependentandcanresult in multiplicative effects that aregreater than the sum of the individualparts.Forexample:

1. The Brookings Institution suggestthat the growing price of oil mayhave been a substantive factor inpushing the trend to reduce cars,thoughtheotherstructuralfactorsaround the culture of urbanismwerealsopullingthetrendalong.

2. The reurbanisation of car‐basedcities and the reorientation oftransport priorities around transit,walking and cycling, are policiesthat feedoneachother;onceonebegins the other tends to followand together they can set inmotionexponentialdeclines in caruse.

3. Themotivationtomovetoamoreurban location with less cardependencecanbeacombinationof time saved in the travel timebudget, fuel saved, a preferencefor urbanism and even gettingolder.

The urban planning profession has beendeveloping alternative plans forAutomobileCities in thepast fewdecadeswith the rationale of reducing cardependence involving all of the abovefactors; few howeverwould have thoughttheywouldbequitesosuccessful,perhapsbecause each of the factors had suchinteractivityandreinforcingeffects.

ImplicationsforPeakCarUseTherealityofdecliningcaruseincitieswillhave big impacts on the professions. Thetrends suggest they are very different tohowtheyhavebeentrainedandhowtheirmanuals suggest they should work. Someexamplesinclude:

1. Traffic engineers will need tofundamentally change their trafficmodels and their assumption thatincreasing road capacity is theirmain raison d’etre. The rationalefor roads will shift away fromaccommodating cars to beingmuch more inclusive of othermodes ‐ light rail, buses, cyclingandwalking.Roaddietsandtrafficcalmingwill become the skill theyneed to lead with rather thanbeingpushedinto.Incaseswhereroad capacity has been reducedsuch as in the demolition of 6 kmof high capacity freeway throughthe centre of Seoul to create anurban stream and boulevarde,average speed across the cityactually improved and there wereno adverse traffic impacts(www.design‐e2.com ‐ Seoul:StreamofConsciousness).Thisandother similar road diet projectsthat have been implementedaround the world with similarexperiences (Schiller et al, 2010),must lead to a change in how thetraffic engineering professionconceives traffic, not as a “liquid”


39

that will flow over everything ifspace is removed, but as a “gas”that compresses according to thespace constraints imposed on it.Peak car use will generate agrowing rationale for removal ofhighcapacityroadsandconversionofspacetosupporttransit,walkingand cycling and the urbanism ofthenewcity.ii

2. Town planners will need tobecome much more adept at re‐urbanising suburbs and centersthan in scattering suburbs aroundthe urban fringe (Newton, 2010).The provision of reduced parkingwill be a tool that can helprevitalise urban development. Thereduction in road space will nowbeseenasapositivevalueforanynewdevelopment.Theautomobilecity planning norm of minimumparking andmaximumdensitywillbe reversed to maximum parkingand minimum density to suit thenew realities. Urban design of thepublic realm will become a muchmore critical factor in urbandevelopment as it has over manyyears in the extensiveredevelopment and especiallytransit‐oriented development thathas shaped cities like Vancouversincethelate1970s.iii

3. Urban financiers will need to re‐

evaluate their penchant forfinancing toll roads and newsuburbsontheurbanfringe.Manyrecent toll roads in Australia have

gone bankrupt because thenumbers of cars have just notmaterializedinthewaythemodelspredicted(Goldberg,2009).

4. Urbaneconomistswillneedtofind

anewwayofmeasuringeconomicprogressotherthanbythenumberofnewcarssold.

ConclusionsThephenomenonofpeakcaruseappearstohavesetintothecitiesofthedevelopedworld.Itseemstobeduetoacombinationof: technological limits set by the inabilityof cars to continue causing urban sprawlwithin travel time budgets; the rapidgrowthintransitandre‐urbanisationwhichcombine to cause exponential declines incar use; the reduction of car use by olderpeople in cities and amongst youngerpeople due to the emerging culture ofurbanism; and the growth in the price offuel which underlies all of the abovefactors. The implications for trafficengineers, planners, financiers andeconomists is a paradigm shift in theirprofessionalunderstandingofwhatmakesa good city in the twenty first century. Itdoes however point to the demise ofautomobiledependence.AuthorscontactdetailsPeterNewmanandJeffKenworthyCurtin University Sustainability Policy(CUSP)InstitutePerth,WesternAustraliaEmail:[email protected]‐frankfurt.de


40

ReferenceFels, M. F. and Munson, M. J. (1974)Energy thrift in urban transportation:Options for the future. Ford FoundationEnergyPolicyProjectReport.Goldberg,J.L.(2009)TheValuationofTollRoads and the Implication for FutureSolvency with Special Reference to theTransurban Group. Journal of BusinessValuation and Economic Loss Analysis, 4(1),Article2.Kenworthy, J. (2011) Update ofMillennium Cities Database forSustainable Transport, ongoing.(unpublished).Kenworthy, J. and Laube, F. (2001) TheMillennium Cities Database forSustainable Transport, ISTP, MurdochUniversity,PerthandUITP,Brussels.

Kenworthy J., Laube F., Newman P.,BarterP.,RaadT.,PoboonC.andGuiaB.(1999) An International Sourcebook ofAutomobile Dependence in Cities, 1960‐1990. University Press of Colorado,Boulder.

Leinberger, C. (2007) The Option ofUrbanism: Investing in a New AmericanDream,IslandPress,WashingtonDC.

Marchetti, C. (1994). AnthropologicalInvariants in Travel Behaviour. TechnicalForecastingandSocialChange47(1):75–78.

Millard‐Ball,A.andSchipper,L.(2010)Arewe reaching peak travel? Trends inpassengertransportineightindustrialisedcountries.TransportReviews, 2010,1‐22.First published on 18 November 2010(iFirst).

Neff, J.W. (1996) Substitution ratesbetween transit and automobile travel.Paper presented at the Association ofAmerican Geographers’ Annual Meeting,Charlotte,NorthCarolina,April.

Newman,P. (1995)Theendof theurbanfreeway. World Transport Policy andPractice1(1):12‐19.

Newman P., Beatley T. and Boyer H.(2009)ResilientCities:RespondingtoPeakOil and Climate Change, Island Press,WashingtonDC.

Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J. (1989)Cities and Automobile Dependence: AnInternational Sourcebook, GowerPublishing,Aldershot.

Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J (1999)Sustainability and Cities: OvercomingAutomobile Dependence, Island Press,WashingtonDC.

Newman, P., Kenworthy J. andGlazebrook, G. (2008) How to CreateExponential Decline in Car Use inAustralian Cities. AdaptNet Policy Forum08‐06‐E‐Ad, 08 July 2008. Also publishedinAustralianPlanner.

Newman,C.E.andNewmanP.W.G.(2006)The Car and Culture. In Beilhartz, P.,Hogan,T.(eds)Sociology:Place,TimeandDivision,OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.

Newton, P. (2010) Beyond Greenfieldsand Brownfields: The Challenge ofRegenerating Australia’s GreyfieldSuburbs, Built Environment 36 (1), (pagenumberstocome).

Puentes, R. and Tomer, A. (2009) TheRoadLessTravelled:AnAnalysisofVehicleMiles Traveled Trends in the U.S.Metropolitan Infrastructure InitiativesSeries, Brookings Institution, WashingtonDC.

Punter, J. (2003) The VancouverAchievement:UrbanPlanningandDesign,UBCPress,Vancouver,BC.

Romanos, M.C. (1978) Energy priceeffects on metropolitan spatial structureandform,EnvironmentandPlanningA,10(1):93‐104.


41

Schiller, P.L. Bruun, E.C. and Kenworthy,J.R. (2010)An Introduction toSustainableTransportation: Policy, Planning andImplementation.Earthscan,London.

Stanley, J. and Barrett, S. (2010)MovingPeople – Solutions for a GrowingAustralia.Report forAustralasianRailway

Association, Bus Industry ConfederationandUITP.

Watt, K.E.F. and Ayres, C. (1974) Urbanland use patterns and transportationenergy cost. Presented to the AnnualMeeting of the American Association forthe Advancement of Science, SanFrancisco

ENDNOTESiThesedatacover25citiesintheUSA(9),Canada(2), Australia (5) and Western Europe (9) forwhich per capita car kilometres are consistentlyavailable for 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990 (seeKenworthyandLaube,1999).ThetrendsineachregionandfortheaverageforthewholesamplearesetoutinTable2.Cities 1960 1970 1980 1990American 5,489 7,049 8,586 10,710%change 28.4% 21.8% 24.7%Canadian 3,482 4,386 6,096 7,913%change 25.9% 39.0% 21.3%Australian 2,910 4,466 5,748 6,536%change 53.5% 28.7% 13.7%European 1,470 2,755 3,534 4,505%change 87.5% 28.2% 27.5%All 25cities

3,366 4,773 6,000 7,376

%change 41.8% 25.7% 22.9%Table2. Caruseper capita in cities indifferentregions from 1960 to 1990 and the percentagechanges,60‐70,70‐80and80‐90.Note:For the 1995 data in our global cities databasethe number of cities being monitored and thecities themselves changed, so it is difficult tocontinue these trends from1990. However, theupdateof thedatato2005,whichmatcheswiththe1995data,sofarshowsthatbetween1995to2005carvehiclekilometrespercapitainUScitiesrose by only 2.0%, in Canadian cities by 2.1%,Australiancitiesby10.4%andEuropeancitiesby

5.6%, leading to an overall increase across thesample of 5.1% (Kenworthy and Laube, 2001;Kenworthy,2011unpublished).Thesamecitiescomprisethesampleineachyearasfollows:US cities: Boston,Chicago,Denver,Houston, LosAngeles, New York, Phoenix, Portland, SanFranciscoCanadiancities:Calgary,WinnipegAustralian cities: Adelaide,Brisbane,Melbourne,Perth,SydneyEuropean cities: Amsterdam, Brussels,Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, London,Munich,Paris,Stockholm.ii Some data now exist to support the positiveeffectthatareductioninfreewayprovisionmighthave in stabilising and reducing per capita caruse. There are some signs of the “peaking” offreeway provision in cities of the developedworld,suggestedbydatabetween1995and2005in the US and European cities, as well asSingapore.Ithasbeenknownfordecadeshowfreewaysareassociated with encouraging greater car use,spreadingthecityoutandunderminingtransitaswell as walking and cycling (Watt and Ayres,1974). Newman (1995) saw signs of the end oftheurbanfreeway,an importantfactor inanewparadigmabouthowtobuildcities.Evidencewasprovided about the many negative effectsassociated with building freeways, includingsevere economic ones, andhowmany cities areseeingtheneedtostopconstructingthem.


42

Much of the trend data supports this. Between1995 and 2005 in the ten major US citiesexamined, the average per capita provision offreeway remained identical at 0.156metres perperson,withsixoutofthetencitiesexperiencingsignificantdeclinesinfreewayprovision(Atlanta,Houston, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Diego andSan Francisco). In fact, all the US cities thatreduced their car use per capita also reducedtheir relative supply of freeways (Atlanta,Houston, Los Angeles and San Francisco). In thefive major European cities examined the samething occurred, with average urban freewayprovision remaining at 0.076metres per personoverthe10years.Singaporedeclinedmarginallyinpercapitafreewaysupply.IntheCanadianandthe Australian cities average per capita freewayprovision did increase, though even here threeoutof thenine cities involveddiddecline inpercapita freeway provision (Vancouver, BrisbaneandMelbourne).iiiThequalityofthepublicrealmindevelopmentsthroughoutVancouveratplaces likeFalseCreek,Coal Harbor, various inner city locations andaroundSkytrain stationshasplaced the city in aleagueof itsownandgives it liveability rankingsconsistently at or near the top of such globalindices (Punter 2003). Other cities such asFreiburgimBreisgau,Germanyarealsoleadersintheserespects(Schilleretal2010).

45 W o r l d T r a n s p o r t P o l i c y a n d P r a c t i c e

V o l u m e 1 7 . 3 N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 1

Corrections to previously published articles in World Transport Policy & Practice

Volume 17.2

Correction to the article by Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy in World Transport Policy and

Practice, Volume 17, number 2, "Peak car use: understanding the demise of automobile

dependence":

The authors wish to sincerely thank the generous support of the Helen and William Mazer

Foundation of New Jersey which contributed to the collection of the 2005/6 data reported in this

paper.

Volume 15.2

The article by Paul Mees in volume 15, number 2 omitted a reference. The article titled "The

density delusion? Urban form and sustainable transport in Australian, Canadian and US cities"

refers to Mindali (2004) and the full reference is:

Mindali, O., Raveh, A. and Salomon, I. (2004) Urban Density and Energy Consumption: a New

Look at Old Statistics. Transportation Research A, 38, 143–162.

Documents

‘Peak Car Use’: Understanding the Demise of Automobile