See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/23551424

Governance of urban mobility: Complex systems and integrated policies

Article  in  Advances in Complex Systems · December 2007

DOI: 10.1142/S0219525907001392 · Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS
10 147

3 authors:

Ennio Cascetta Francesca Pagliara

University of Naples Federico II University of Naples Federico II
171 PUBLICATIONS   4,417 CITATIONS    108 PUBLICATIONS   796 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Andrea Papola
University of Naples Federico II
54 PUBLICATIONS   674 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A model of route perception in urban road networks View project

Dynamic Network Loading models View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Francesca Pagliara on 27 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

January 2, 2008 18:20 WSPC/169-ACS 00139

Advances in Complex Systems, Vol. 10, Suppl. No. 2 (2007) 339–354

c World Scientific Publishing Company

GOVERNANCE OF URBAN MOBILITY: COMPLEX

SYSTEMS AND INTEGRATED POLICIES

ENNIO CASCETTA, FRANCESCA PAGLIARA

and ANDREA PAPOLA∗
Dipartimento di Ingegneria dei Trasporti “L. Tocchetti,”
Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II
Via Claudio 21, 80125 Napoli, Italy
∗papola@unina.it

Received 20 November 2006

Revised 8 January 2007

Transportation systems are “internally” complex systems, made up of many elements

influencing each other both directly and indirectly, often nonlinearly, with many feedback
cycles. Apart from the internal complexity, transportation systems are closely interre-
lated with other systems, which can be defined as external. Transport projects may have
implications for the economy, the location and intensity of the activities in a given area,
the environment, the quality of life and social cohesion. Actually, today, in order to have
a better view of the urban problems and mainly for better governance of mobility, the
urban system per se is no longer studied, but rather the whole metropolitan area sur-
rounding it. Transport and land use are clearly integrated. Each technological innovation
in transport has encouraged both people and industry to change their location to take
advantage of the improved mobility; similarly, each change in land development (e.g.
houses, factories, offices and shops) has influenced the demand for travel and ultimately
the provision of new transport infrastructures and services. An example of integrated
land use and transport planning is the Regional Metro System (RMS) project, carried
out in Campania, which is finally reported.

Keywords: Urban mobility; governance; transportation network.

1. Introduction
Urban mobility is a vital component of any city, often influencing its physical shape
as well as its level of economic and social development. However, the governance
of urban mobility is very complex — both politically, with conflicting interests,
symbolic values and large economic impacts, and technically, since it is the result
of the interactions of several elements, i.e. of the functioning of a sociotechnical
complex system. More specifically, a transportation system can be defined as the
combination of elements and their interactions which produce the demand for travel
within a given area and the supply of transportation services to satisfy this demand.
This definition is general and flexible enough to be applied to different contexts.
∗ Corresponding author

339
January 2, 2008 18:20 WSPC/169-ACS 00139

340 E. Cascetta, F. Pagliara and A. Papola

The specific structure of the system is defined by the problem itself (or class of
problems), for whose solution it is employed. Almost all of the components of a
social and economic system in a given geographical area interact with different
levels of intensity. However, it is practically impossible to take into account every
interacting element to solve a transportation engineering problem. The typical sys-
tem engineering approach is to isolate those elements which are most relevant to
the problem. These elements, and the relationships among them, make up the anal-
ysis system [1, 2]. The remaining elements belong to the external environment and
are taken into account only in terms of their interactions with the analysis system.
In general, the analysis system includes the elements and the interactions that are
expected to be significantly affected by the projects under consideration. It follows
that there is a strict interdependence between the identification of the analysis sys-
tem and the problem to be solved. The transportation system of a given area can also
be seen as a subsystem of a wider territorial system with which it strongly interacts.
The extent to which these interactions are included in the analysis system, or else
in the external environment, depends on the specific problem [3]. For example, in
an urban system consisting of a set of households, workplaces, services, transporta-
tion facilities, government organizations, regulations, etc., several subsystems can
be identified, including the activity and transportation systems both relevant for
our purposes (see Fig. 1). The activity system of an urban area can be schematically

Fig. 1. Relationships between the transportation system and the activity system.
January 2, 2008 18:20 WSPC/169-ACS 00139

Governance of Urban Mobility 341

decomposed into three subsystems consisting of:

(i) The households divided into categories (by income level, life cycle, composition,
etc.) living in each zone;
(ii) The economic activities located in each zone and divided by sectors (different
industrial and service sectors), by economic (e.g. added value) and physical
(e.g. the number of employees) indicators;
(iii) The floor space (or volumes) available in each zone for various uses (industrial
production, offices, residences, shops, building areas, etc.) and relative market
prices (real estate system).

However, it should be highlighted that in order to have a better view of the urban
problems and mainly for better governance of mobility, the whole metropolitan area
surrounding any given city should be considered. The different components of the
activity system interact in many ways. For example, the number and typology of
the households living in the various zones depend on employment opportunities and
their distribution, and therefore on the subsystem of economic activities. Further-
more, the location of some types of economic activities (retail, social services such as
education and welfare, etc.) depends on the distribution of the households. Finally,
the households and the economic activities in each zone depend on the availability
of specific types of floor space (houses, shops, etc.) and on the relative prices. The
relative “accessibility” of the different zones, ensured by the transportation system,
is extremely relevant to many of these mechanisms. The transportation system can
be split into two main components: demand and supply. The distribution of house-
holds and activities in the area is the determinant of transportation demand deriving
from the need to use different urban functions in different places. Household mem-
bers are the users of the transportation supply system and make “mobility choices”
(holding a driving license, number of cars, etc.) and “travel choices” (trip frequency,
time, destination, mode, path, etc.) in order to undertake activities (work, study,
shopping, etc.) in different locations. The result of these choices is the transporta-
tion demand, i.e. the number of trips made among the different zones of the city,
for different purposes, in different periods, by means of the different available trans-
portation modes. Similarly, economic activities transport goods that are consumed
by the households or by other economic activities. Goods movements make up
the freight transportation demand. Both mobility and travel choices are influenced
by some characteristics of the transportation services offered by the different travel
modes (individual car, transit, walking). These characteristics are known as level-of-
service or performance attributes and include travel times, monetary costs, service
reliability, riding comfort, etc. Thus, the choice of destination may be influenced by
the travel time and cost needed to reach each destination. The choice of departure
time depends on the travel time to the destination. The choice of transportation
mode is influenced by times, costs, and reliability of the available modes. The char-
acteristics of transportation services depend on the transportation supply, i.e. the
set of facilities (roads, parking spaces, railway lines, etc.), services (transit lines
January 2, 2008 18:20 WSPC/169-ACS 00139

342 E. Cascetta, F. Pagliara and A. Papola

and timetables), regulations (road circulation and parking regulations) and prices
(transit fares, parking prices, road tolls, etc.) producing travel opportunities. The
physical elements of the transportation supply system have a finite capacity, i.e. a
maximum number of users that can be served in a given time interval. Individual
trips can be aggregated into users flows, i.e. the number of users on the physical ele-
ments of the supply system in a given time interval. Examples are automobile and
truck flows on road sections, passenger flows on transit lines, and so on. When flow
approaches capacity, the interactions among users increase and congestion effects
are triggered. Congestion can significantly deteriorate the performances of trans-
portation services for the users; for example, travel times, service delays and fuel
consumptions all increase with congestion. Congestion can also have other “exter-
nal” negative effects (such as noise, air pollution and visual impacts in the case of
road traffic). Congestion can have cross-modal effects; for example, road congestion
can influence the performances of surface transit services. Finally, transportation
performances influence the relative accessibility of different zones of the urban area
by determining, for a given zone, the “cost” of reaching other zones (“active” acces-
sibility), or being reached from other zones (“passive” accessibility). As has been
noted, both these accessibilities influence the location of households and economic
activities and ultimately the real estate market. For example, in choosing the resi-
dence zone, households take into account the active accessibility to the workplace
and to other services (commerce, education, etc.); the location of economic activities
is chosen taking into account the passive accessibility from its potential clients; the
location of public services should be chosen taking into account the passive acces-
sibility from the users, and so on. An urban transportation system contains many
feedback cycles, i.e. cycles of interdependence between the various elements and
subsystems, as shown in Fig. 1. The innermost cycle, i.e. the one involving the least
number of elements and which usually has a shorter “reaction time” to any pertur-
bation, is the interaction between flows, congestion and costs on modal networks,
and on the road network in particular. The trips between the various zones made
with a given mode (e.g. the car) use different paths and result in traffic flows on
the different supply elements (e.g. road sections). Because of congestion, these flows
influence travel times and other characteristics of the different paths, which in turn
influence path choices. There are outer cycles, i.e. cycles influencing several choice
dimensions whose changes occur over longer time periods. These cycles involve the
distribution of trips among the possible destinations and the alternative modes.
Modal origin–destination demand flows induce traffic flows that, due to congestion,
modify the service characteristics, which in turn influence destination and mode
choices. Finally, there are other cycles that span even longer time periods in which
activity locations and transportation demand interact. Again, through user flows
and congestion, travel demand influences the accessibility of the different zones of
the urban area and therefore the location choices of households and firms. Gov-
erning the urban mobility means designing transportation supply projects by using
the quantitative methods described in the following section [4]. The projects may
January 2, 2008 18:20 WSPC/169-ACS 00139

Governance of Urban Mobility 343

have very different “dimensions” and impacts, and consequently the boundaries of
the analysis system and the external environment will be different. If the prob-
lem at hand is the long-term planning of the whole urban transportation system,
including the construction of new motorways, railway lines, parking facilities, etc.,
the analysis system has to include the entire multimodal transportation system
and possibly its relationships with the urban activity system. Indeed, the modifica-
tions in transportation performance implied and the time needed to implement the
project are such that all the components of transportation and activity systems will
likely be affected. There are cases, however, in which the problem is more limited.
If, for example, the aim is to design the service characteristics of an urban transit
system without building new infrastructures (and without implementing new car
restriction policies), it is common practice to include in the analysis system only
the elements related to public transportation (demand, services, prices, vehicles,
etc.). The rest of the transportation system is included in the external environment
interacting with the public transportation system.

2. Modeling Transportation Systems

The relevant interactions among the various elements of a transportation system
can be simulated with mathematical models; the models and their relationships are
described in Fig. 2 [5].

Fig. 2. Structure of transportation system simulation models.

January 2, 2008 18:20 WSPC/169-ACS 00139

344 E. Cascetta, F. Pagliara and A. Papola

Supply models simulate the transportation services available among the different
zones with flow network models. More specifically, supply models simulate the per-
formance of transportation infrastructures and services for the users, as well as the
main external effects of transport (pollution, energy consumption, accidents). The
level-of-service attributes, such as travel time and cost, will be input variables for
the demand models. To simulate the performance of single elements (facilities) and
the effects of congestion, especially for road systems, supply models use the results
of traffic flow theory [6]. For the transit system the hyperpath approach is generally
considered.
Demand models simulate the relevant aspects of travel demand as a function
of the activity system and of the supply performances. Typically, the characteris-
tics of travel demand simulated include the number of trips in the reference period
(demand level) and their distribution among the different zones, the different trans-
port modes and the different paths. Other components of travel demand are simu-
lated in specific applications, such as the distribution between different time inter-
vals within the reference period. Travel demand models are usually derived from
random utility theory.
Assignment models (or network demand–supply interaction models) simulate
how O–D demand and path flows load the various elements of the supply system.
Assignment models allow the calculation of link flows, i.e. the number of users
loading each link of the network representing the transportation supply in the ref-
erence period [7]. Furthermore, link flows may affect the transportation supply
performances through congestion and therefore may affect the input to demand
models. The interdependencies of demand, flows and costs are simulated by assign-
ment models. A significant number of different modeling approaches, experimental
validations, computational tools and empirical applications have been developed
over the last half century. The body of the literature on all these aspects is large,
to the extent that it has been systematized in a proper “theory of transportation
systems” [1,2]. Finally, traditional transportation models are sometimes integrated
with models simulating activity location and production levels. These models differ
according to the size of the study area (urban, regional and national) and the type
of activities considered to be endogenous (i.e. explicitly represented in the model).
For example, they may relate to household location in an urban area or to the
production level in different sectors of the economy at multiregional level. Models
simulating the transportation system and activity locations are usually referred to
as land use transportation interaction models.

3. Transportation Planning and the Decision-Making Process

The complexity of the transportation problems of an urban area cannot be handled
with single actions but, rather, with a set of coordinated, internally consistent
actions which is generally referred to as a project or plan. The models described
in the preceding sections are needed to evaluate the main potential effects of the
January 2, 2008 18:20 WSPC/169-ACS 00139

Governance of Urban Mobility 345

project(s), to test their technical suitability and to support intermediate and final
decision-makers.
Decision-making for urban transportation systems is usually more complex than
for many systems analyzed and designed by other sectors of engineering [8]. This is
especially true when the decision-maker must, either directly or indirectly, consider
the effects of proposed actions on the collectivity.
Project decisions can be made in many different ways. The “rational” approach
to decision-making is based on the evaluation of the various effects of the different
possible projects on the different parties involved. This approach, which is com-
monly adopted in the case of “private” decisions, is even more necessary when the
decisions are made on behalf of a community. The natural dynamics of society,
economic cycles, changes in individuals’ and decision-makers’ attitudes, the occur-
rence of particular events and the availability of resources are such that decisions
and their implementation evolve over time. This has resulted in changes over the
years in the very concept of planning. Planning is no longer seen as the draft of
a single plan, or as a “closed” activity defining projects to be implemented over a
sufficiently long period of time. A planning process is a sequence of decisions (plans
or projects) taken at different, not necessarily predefined, moments in time account-
ing for the effects of previous decisions. In this framework the role of quantitative
methods in the definition and the evaluation of alternative projects is even more
relevant as they ensure a sort of “dynamic rationality” for the whole process [9].
In Fig. 3 the different macroactivities of the decision process are depicted. The
right side of the figure shows the decision process, while the left side shows the
phases of analysis and modeling functional to these activities.
In the phase of objectives and constraints identification, the objectives of the
decision-maker (or decision-makers) and the relevant constraints for the project
are defined. Objectives and constraints may be explicit or, at least partly, implicit.
They depend on the perspective of the decision-maker and, in one way or another,
define the type of actions that can be included in the project.
In the case of public decision-makers, the project objectives are many, often not
clearly defined and conflicting with each other, as are the interests of a “complex”
society. A public decision-maker may be interested in increasing safety, reducing
the generalized transportation cost borne by the users, increasing equity in the
distribution of transport benefits, improving accessibility to economic and social
activities, fostering new territorial developments, protecting environmental values
and reducing the public deficit. Objectives and constraints, explicit or implicit,
synthesize the values and attitudes of the society. The increasing relevance of energy
consumption and of environment preservation in recent decades are clear examples
of this point.
Both objectives and constraints influence the successive phases of the process
and in particular the analysis of the present situation and the actions that can
be included in alternative projects. From the modeling perspective, these factors
impact the definition of the system of analysis, i.e. the identification of the elements
January 2, 2008 18:20 WSPC/169-ACS 00139

346 E. Cascetta, F. Pagliara and A. Papola

and their relationships included in the representation of the system in order to

evaluate correctly the effects of planned actions.
In the phase of analysis of the present situation, data on the transportation
and activity systems are collected. Data are used for the analysis of the present
state of the system and for the identification of its main inadequacies or “criti-
cal points” with respect to the objectives and the constraints of the project. In a
problem-solving approach, the critical aspects should be corrected or alleviated by
the planned actions. This phase is also linked to the building of a mathematical
model of the present system, since it provides the input data for the models (sup-
ply, demand, land use). Furthermore it usually receives from the models estimates
of some system performance indicators (e.g. flows, saturation levels, generalized
transport costs by the O–D pair) impossible or too costly to measure directly.
The next step is the formulation of system projects (or plans), i.e. sets of comple-
mentary and/or integrative actions which are internally consistent and technically
feasible.a The strict interdependence among the elements of a transportation system
generally requires a project to be designed taking into account the various compo-
nents that may be significantly influenced by it. A new subway line, for example,
requires a reorganization of the surface transit lines to increase the catchment area
of the stations (complementary action). Restricting the access of cars to parts of
an urban area requires the design of appropriate parking areas, transit lines, pric-
ing policies and so on (integrative actions). Systems design is usually limited to
the definition of the functional characteristics of the elements composing the sys-
tem; their physical design, if necessary, pertains to other branches of engineering.
In general, several alternative projects can be proposed in response to predefined
objectives. One alternative is the nonintervention (do-nothing) option, i.e. the pos-
sibility of keeping the system in its present state or, more realistically, of following
the decisions already taken. For more complex projects requiring several actions,
which cannot be implemented simultaneously, alternative time sequences can be
generated and each sequence can be considered as an alternative project. In fact,
the effects, and the “convenience,” of a project may be significantly influenced by
the specific sequence of actions implemented.
Assessment and evaluation of alternative projects require the simulation of the
relevant effects (impacts) of their realization [10]. Most of the impacts can be sim-
ulated quantitatively using the mathematical models described in the preceding
section. If the evaluation of a project requires the simulation of its main impacts
on a sufficiently long time horizon, assumptions on the “future” structure of the
activity system, or rather on the values of the variables exogenous with respect
to the model adopted, are needed. A set of consistent assumptions on the activity
system is usually known as a socioeconomic scenario. The evolution of exogenous

a Complementary projects reciprocally increase their positive effects (e.g. park and ride facilities

and railway lines), while integrative projects aim at reducing the reciprocal negative effects (e.g.
park pricing and upgrading public transport).
January 2, 2008 18:20 WSPC/169-ACS 00139

Governance of Urban Mobility 347

Fig. 3. Transportation system design and the planning process.

variables over long time periods depends on complex phenomena related to the
demographic, social and economic evolution of the area and on the related external
environment. It is very difficult, if possible at all, to forecast these phenomena with
sufficient precision. Thus the usual practice is to consider different scenarios to esti-
mate the range of variation of the simulated effects and to check the robustness of
the alternative projects with respect to the possible future scenarios.
The technical assessment of the projects concludes the system design phase. This
activity verifies that the elements of the supply system are “functional” within
their ranges of economic validity and technical feasibility (for example, that the
forecasted users’ flows are not too low or too high with respect to their technical
capacity). Moreover the technical feasibility of supply performances assumed and
their consistency with the simulated system state are checked. Technical assessment
January 2, 2008 18:20 WSPC/169-ACS 00139

348 E. Cascetta, F. Pagliara and A. Papola

is performed on the basis of simulated impacts of the projects. Simulations can (and
often do) have feedbacks on the formulation of projects, as is usually the case with
the design of engineering systems.
The activities related to the analysis of the present situation, the formulation of
alternative projects, the simulation of relevant effects and the technical assessment
can be collectively defined as the system design phase.
The effects of alternative projects can be further processed to facilitate their
comparison. There are many techniques for the analysis and comparison of alterna-
tive projects with different levels of aggregation, such as cost–benefit and multicrite-
rion analysis [11]. However, it should be stressed that these techniques cannot and
should not replace the actual decision-making process, which is based on compro-
mises among conflicting interests and objectives; rather, they should be considered
as tools to support actual decision-making.
After a project is implemented, one can compare forecasted and actual effects,
observe the occurrence of unexpected developments and new problems, and evaluate
social consent and/or dissent. These may modify some elements of the project
or alter its future development. The monitoringb of a project is the systematic
checking of the main “state variables” of the transportation system and the use of
these checks for the identification of new problems and the a posteriori evaluation
of project impacts. In practice, monitoring transportation systems and projects is
often neglected or carried out nonsystematically, although it should play a much
more important role in the planning process.
The complexity of the decision-making processes for transportation systems is
clear from what has been said so far. The analyst has a technical role in the phases
of analysis, design and simulation of the interventions. It should also be recog-
nized that, in general, interactions among transportation system engineering and
other disciplines, such as the other branches of engineering, economics, urban and
regional planning, as well as social sciences, are needed, particularly if the projects
imply significant effects on external systems. On the other hand, understanding the
“functioning” of transportation systems and therefore their design and quantita-
tive simulation is the core of the disciplinary competence of transportation system
engineers.

4. Integrated Policies
Transport and land use are clearly integrated, as has already been reported in Fig. 1.
The importance of this interaction is demonstrated in the way in which cities and
regions have evolved over time [12, 13]. Each technological innovation in transport
has encouraged both people and industry to change their location to take advantage
of the improved mobility; similarly, each change in land development (e.g. houses,

b Monitoring has a conceptual function analogous to feedback in “closed loop” control systems,
which usually prove to be more efficient than open loop systems.
January 2, 2008 18:20 WSPC/169-ACS 00139

Governance of Urban Mobility 349

factories, offices and shops) has influenced the demand for travel and ultimately
the provision of new transport infrastructures and services.
When one is evaluating transport or land use policies, it is important to take
these interactions into account because their long term impacts are likely to be
very different from short term responses. Therefore “joint” or integrated land use
and transport planning is necessary for determining the spatial organization of an
area [2].
An example of integrated land use and transport planning is the Regional Metro
System (RMS) project, carried out in Campania, which with its 5,7 million inhab-
itants is the second-largest administrative region of Italy. The whole project is
based on the idea of integrating the existing lines into a single network by building
some new interconnecting lines, new stations and new modal exchange facilities.
The RMS project has been developed in two administrative stages: the Munici-
pal Transportation Plan of the city of Naples [14] and the Regional Metro System
project of the whole Campania region in 2001 [15]. Actually, the RMS project can
be considered the extension of the plan for the integrated urban railway network of
the municipality of Naples to the whole region. It has been conceived together with
the Master Plan of Naples and it represents the basis for the regional territorial
plan at the regional level.
The RMS project has been planned from the outset as an integrated transport
land use project; in its development different types of territorial interaction were
taken into account. Two types of integration can be identified. The first is the inte-
grated transportation system, i.e. an interaction between infrastructures, services
and pricing. Actually, the identified planning process follows a twofold temporal
perspective. At the first planning level, the objective is to identify a set of “priority
projects” to be completed in the mid-term (5–10 years), maximizing the social bene-
fits with respect to the current physical and economic constraints. This is called the
“invariant” scenario, consisting of new infrastructures and transportation services,
aiming at optimizing the budget currently available, and outlining a first hypoth-
esis of the Public Transport (PT) network. Consistently with the modern concept
of the planning process, further development of the system has subsequently been
designed by means of integrating, and partly redesigning, the first hypotheses of the
network, according to the actual evolutions of the transport–land use system, to
the needs of mobility and to the economic resources available. In fact, at the second
planning level, the design of the overall public transportation system is completed
by means of a set of options (i.e. the “options” scenario) to be verified through
specific “feasibility studies” and realized in the long term. The RMS project aims,
in the invariant scenario, to improve the basic extension of the railway network
from 1179 km to 1349 km, with a percentage change of 14%. Concerning the new
infrastructures it will consider new national and regional lines, new urban lines and
electrifications (see Fig. 4 and Table 1). There will be a percentage change of +37
for new stations. In particular, considering as basic scenario the Municipal Trans-
portation Plan of Naples (1997) and as intermediate scenario the situation of the
January 2, 2008 18:20 WSPC/169-ACS 00139

350 E. Cascetta, F. Pagliara and A. Papola

Fig. 4. The infrastructure network: invariants + options (zoom on the central area).

Table 1. The RMS project (2015): Infrastructures (invariants).

Total extension of the Base 1179 km

railway network 2015 1349 km
Change 170 km
% change 14%
New infrastructures New national and regional lines 153 km
New urban lines 17 km
Electrifications 60 km
Number of stations Base 340
2015 467
% change 37%

Source: Secretary of Transport of Campania Region

year 2006, the scenario in 2015 is really appealing in terms of kilometers of railways
and tramways, and the number of stations and railway interchange nodes and park
and ride nodes (see Table 2).
The second level of integration is related to land use interactions. Actually,
five types of such interactions can be identified: the changes in activity location
and land values around the RMS stations; contributions of stations to the “urban
January 2, 2008 18:20 WSPC/169-ACS 00139

Governance of Urban Mobility 351

Table 2. Railway network expansion in Naples.

1996 2006 ∆ (1996–2006) 2015 ∆ (2015–1996)

Km of railways 54.6 74.4 19.8 90 35.4
No. of stations 40 56 16 98 58
Source: Secretary of Transport of Campania Region

quality” of the surrounding area; the “branching out” of the rail network to connect
existing major concentrations of activities; the location of new activities around
existing lines/stations; the proposal of new area development plans in connection
with infrastructure developments [16].
Concerning the first point, the main outcome of such analysis is that in the
areas of the central stations there is a decrease of residents due to an increase of
land values for different destination uses larger than the average value of the city of
Naples. On the other hand, in the peripheral areas there is an increase of residents
and an increase of land values equal to or lower than the average value of the city of
Naples. These effects can be explained by a transformation of the land use induced
somewhat by the new metro line which acted as amplifiers of the “vocation” of
different zones. Thus in peripheral stations it induced an increase in the residential
role of those areas, while in more central zones higher prices and retail and service
location reduced the number of residents.
Concerning the second point, a new concept of transport infrastructures under-
lies the RMS project: no longer infrastructures with negative impacts on the sur-
rounding areas but opportunities to carry out an esthetic and urban requalification
of the area itself. The project of wide, bright and smart places makes the use of
public transport more pleasant and attractive. The introduction within and outside
the stations of artistic elements, such as sculptures, innovative building materials,
and modern artworks, makes the “Art Metrò” a unique example in the world. This
witnesses the combination between art and urban planning. It is something that can
be inserted in the tour guides and which should be used not only for traveling within
the city in a fast, comfortable and ecological way, but mainly for communicating
to the world a new image of the city.
The role of transport in connecting existing polarities (third point), i.e. already-
established settlements and activities, is another fundamental part of the whole
RMS project. An example is the big university campus of M. S. Angelo. A new rail
connection between two existing regional lines has been proposed. The first section,
M. S. Angelo–Soccavo, is under construction.
Transport infrastructures can induce the development of new activities and
settlements (fourth point). An example is the works connected with the adjust-
ment and improvement of the station of Naples–S. Giovanni Barra. The Municipal
Transportation Plan for the city of Naples (1997) proposes the improvement of
the railway transportation system through the development of an intermodal net-
work strictly connected, with 18 interchange nodes, among which is the node of
January 2, 2008 18:20 WSPC/169-ACS 00139

352 E. Cascetta, F. Pagliara and A. Papola

S. Giovanni Barra. The latter becomes the new terminal of line 2 of the metro
system and an interchange node with the FS network till Salerno and the tramway
network. As a consequence, the City Council in 1999 approved the urban renewal
and sustainability development program concerning the coastal zone of S. Giovanni
(Vigliena), where it is also planned to recover the old metallurgic plant Corradini
and the building of a port with the relative infrastructures and new sport facilities
as well.
The renewal of the whole area considers also new university buildings and public
facilities to be built around the area.
The new high speed station of Naples–Afragola will be built in Afragola (fifth
point). It will be located 3 km to the north of the city of Naples and will be devel-
oped on a surface of 20,000 m2 , with a possible extension of over 10,000 m2 . The
station is in the heart of some settlements of average size, whose population varies
between 50,000 and 100,000 inhabitants. The Afragola station, which will be work-
ing in 2008, has been conceived to be placed beside the main train station, “Naples
Central,” and will work as an exchange node of high speed trains directed to the
south, i.e. to Reggio Calabria, to Naples and to the regional rail services of the FS
and Circumvesuviana networks (integrated in the regional metro system). Naples–
Afragola will represent an important node and will be integrated also with the
main road links. The regional lines, which will depart from the new station, will
be expanded and will be endowed, at the urban level, with new stops with the
objective of improving mobility within the whole metropolitan area.

5. Conclusions
Urban systems are complex systems governed by many degrees of freedom, inter-
acting on different space and time scales. Their evolution is shaped by internal
factors, such as decisions taken by institutions and individuals and external causes
(international economic context), and by social development. They are also the
core of economic, political and cultural activities, giving rise, among other things,
to relocation and conversion of factories, and development of new services.
Cities which have “grappled” with urban sprawl are distinguished by their recog-
nition that land use patterns and transportation investment must unfold together.
This relationship is clearly two-way, close and complex.
All over the world transportation systems are of strategic importance, for several
reasons: they are the first tool of social cohesion; they are a powerful element in
promoting economic and employment development and establishing an equilibrium
between territorial areas with different levels of accessibility.
Transportation systems are complex systems themselves, as has been reported in
Sec. 1. They are, in fact, “internally” complex systems, made up of many elements
influencing each other both directly and indirectly. Only some elements in the sys-
tem are “technical” (vehicles, infrastructures, etc.). On the other hand, the number
of travelers or goods using these physical elements, and, through congestion, their
January 2, 2008 18:20 WSPC/169-ACS 00139

Governance of Urban Mobility 353

performances and impacts are strictly connected with travel demand and users’
behavior. Thus the analysis of travel demand plays a key role in understanding and
designing transportation systems. Apart from the internal complexity, transporta-
tion systems are closely interrelated with other systems, which can be defined as
external. Transport projects may have implications for the economy, the location
and intensity of the activities in a given area, the environment, the quality of life
and social cohesion. In short, they have a bearing on many, often contrasting, inter-
ests, as can easily be seen from the heated arguments that accompany almost all
decisions concerning transport at all scales (as shown in Sec. 3). The intensity of
these impacts and the sensitivity to them have grown considerably in recent decades
as a result of the economic and social development of our civilization, and have to
be addressed in the design and evaluation of transportation projects. Furthermore,
due to the large number of design variables and the complexity of their interactions,
the simulation of the effects of several combinations of such variables requires pow-
erful mathematical tools to help the designer to find satisfactory combinations (as
reported in Sec. 2). As described in Sec. 4, integrated land-use/transport policies
are necessary in our cities. Promoting investments in transport infrastructures and,
integrating networks and services improve both qualitatively and quantitatively the
public transport, with a subsequent increase of its use. There follow a reduction in
the use of cars, a reduction in the air pollution and noise, and better living con-
ditions. An example of the virtuous cycle of mobility in urban systems is reported
in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. The virtuous cycle of mobility.

 January 2, 2008 18:20 WSPC/169-ACS 00139

354 E. Cascetta, F. Pagliara and A. Papola

References
[1] Cascetta, E., Transportation Systems Engineering: Theory and Methods (Kluwer,
Boston, 2001).
[2] Cascetta, E., Modelli per i sistemi di trasporto: Teoria e applicazioni (UTET, Italy,
2006).
[3] Manheim, M., Fundamentals of Transportation Systems Analysis (MIT Press,
Cambridge, 1979).
[4] Bianco, L., The role of quantitative methods in urban transportation planning, in
Proc. Int. Seminar on the Management and Planning of Urban Transport Systems:
From Theory to Practice (Montreal, Canada, 1986).
[5] Florian, M., Gaudry, M. and Lardinois, P., A two-dimensional framework for the
understanding of transportation planning models, Transportation Research B 22
(1988) 411–419.
[6] Sheffi, Y., Urban Transportation Networks (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliff, N. J.
Wachs, 1985).
[7] Ortuzar, J. D. and Willumsen, L. G., Modelling Transport (John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 2001), 3rd edn.
[8] Alexander, E. R., Introduzione alla Pianificazione: Teorie, concetti e problemi attuali.,
translation of Approaches to Planning: Introduction to Current Planning Theories (by
F. D. Moccia) (Clean, Naples, 1997).
[9] Meyer, M. D. and Miller, E. J., Urban Transportation Planning (McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1984).
[10] Hutchinson, G., Principles of Urban Transportation Systems Planning (McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1974).
[11] Boyer, K. D., Principles of Transportation Economics (Addison-Wesley, Longman,
1998).
[12] Wilson, A. G., Urban and Regional Models in Geography and Planning (John Wiley
& Sons, London, 1985).
[13] Transecon, Urban transport and local socio-economic development, deliverables 4
and 5 (http://www.transecon.org) (2003).
[14] Comune di Napoli, Municipal Transportation Plan (Piano Comunale dei Trasporti),
final report (Naples, 1997).
[15] Cascetta, E., La sfida dei trasporti in Campania: Un sistema integrato per la mobilitá
sostenibile (Electa, Naples, 2005).
[16] Cascetta, E. and Pagliara, F. (2007), Integrated Railways-based Policies. The regional
metro system project of Naples and Campania (forthcoming).

View publication stats