Park-and-Ride motivations and air quality norms in Europe Marc Dijk a,⇑ , Jan de Haes b , Carlos Montalvo c a International Centre for Integrated Assessment and Sustainable Development (ICIS), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands b University College Maastricht (UCM), PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands c TNO, Dutch Institute for Applied Scientific Research, PO Box 6030, 2600 JA Delft, The Netherlands article info Keywords: Park-and-Ride Parking Policy framing Sustainable mobility Air quality abstract Transport congestion and the quality of the air in cities is a persistent concern for urban planners, and in this context Park and Ride (P + R) facilities have been proposed as an element of urban sustainability strategies in many cities in Europe. In 2008 a European Commission directive aimed at improving local air quality has been introduced, the Directive on air quality and cleaner air for Europe. It seems reasonable to suggest that increased regulatory measures at European level may have spurred interest in developing potential sustainable transport (policy) innovations such as P + R. We test this hypothesis through a survey among 25 cities in North-West Europe. We find that by 2010 perceived regulatory pressure for P + R has indeed increased compared to 2005, although it remains weak and is still not a significant motivation for P + R development. Furthermore, it was found that perceived community pressure has become a significant motivation, possibly because of increased public aware- ness and attention for global warming and sustainability. Overall we find that framing of P + R among urban planners as well as the cities’ engagement levels have not evolved significantly from 2005 levels and thus that air quality concerns are an increasing but currently not strong motivation for local author- ities in North-West Europe to develop P + R. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction In many western countries a laissez-faire approach to spatial planning in the 1980s and 1990s contributed to rapid growth in car use and car dependence. Although concerns about sustainabil- ity have disseminated across most sectors of public policy in Eur- ope since the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987), attempts at improving sustainability in the transport sector have so far proven to be particularly challenging. Even though technological improve- ments offset some of the environmental damage, the increased mobility of individuals in absolute terms means the ecological footprint of car mobility continues to grow. Not only is it responsi- ble for a significant amount of CO 2, a global level impact, it also negatively impacts the quality of life at the local level (WHO, 1999); the spatial scale focused on in this paper. Park and Ride (P + R) facilities have been proposed as an element of urban sus- tainability strategies, for instance in the UK, where a national gov- ernment’s 10-year strategy document argued that P + R ‘‘... can offer an effective way of reducing congestion and pollution in busy urban centres...’’ (DETR, 2000a, p. 60). While P + R had been implemented in only a few places in the 1970s and 1980s, significant policy diffusion occurred in the 1990s, particularly in the UK after a decision by the national gov- ernment that ‘packages’ of individually small but inter-related ur- ban transport measures could be funded. The publishing of the 1998 Integrated Transport White Paper (DETR, 1998) was of partic- ular importance for P + R as it proposed a ‘new realism’ in trans- port. This concept was coined at the start of the decade by Goodwin et al. (1991). It refers to the need of viable alternatives to car usage in order to achieve modal shift on a wide scale and for better land-use planning – to reduce the need to travel. Reduc- ing pollution, congestion and social exclusion, without harming economic growth, became the overarching principles in UK trans- port policy. Park and ride is included in the White Paper as one ele- ment that can help achieve these aims. Hence there is an aspiration that P + R will contribute to the achievement of the Air Quality Strategy (DETR, 2000b) in urban areas, which entails statutory lim- its on pollution levels. Indeed, the 10-year strategy in 2000 foresaw considerable expansion of P + R, estimating that ‘‘up to 100 new park and ride schemes’’ would result from the proposed invest- ment in local transport facilities (DETR, 2000a, p. 65), about three quarter of which were actually realised (TAS Partnership, 2007). P + R is often introduced as part of a local policy package with integrated measures that promote a more holistic approach to- wards sustainable mobility. This is important to note, since, in most situations, complementary policy measures must also be in place in order to encourage the use of P + R sites. Typically, parking in the city centre must come at a premium price, while the trans- port links between the P + R site and the urban centre must be 0966-6923/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.04.008 ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 (0)43 388 3301; fax: +31 (0)43 388 4916. E-mail addresses: m.dijk@maastrichtuniversity.nl (M. Dijk), jan.dehaes@gmail. com (J. de Haes), calos.montalvo@tno.nl (C. Montalvo). Journal of Transport Geography 30 (2013) 149–160 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Transport Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo