Vital Cities: Transport Systems Scorecard

Vital Cities: Transport Systems Scorecard

Vital Cities: Transport Systems Scorecard

The Future Spaces Foundation developed the Vital Cities: Transport Systems Scorecard to investigate how transport and connectivity play a role in making our cities vital. We believe that connected cities – those with well-networked, efficient and sustainable transport systems – are better equipped to meet the needs of rising (and ageing) populations and provide vital, dense urban environments for people to live and work in.

The Vital Cities: Transport Systems Scorecard reports on 12 cities around the world, highlighting how they respond to the various challenges associated with transport systems in urban areas. Each has been measured against performance indicators in 10 different areas relating to transport, and given an overall grade between A and F. To ease comparison, the cities have been grouped into the four categories below.

The research findings highlight the particular successes and areas for improvement for each individual city, which we hope will ultimately broaden our understanding of how cities can develop their transport systems to become more vital, better spaces to live in. For more information on the research and methodology behind the Scorecard and for links to related articles, please click here.

Key

key

Global Cities

Global Cities are significant financial and service sector centres in the global economy, home to major international airports and large mass transit networks.

  • New York
  • London
  • Hong Kong

New York and London lead the group, achieving a B grade each, while Hong Kong, which gets a C, is more in keeping with the Mega Cities scores. Long-term investment in mass transit networks and an ability to adapt to the ever-growing consumer demand for real-time information with innovative data policies have helped the Global Cities keep pace with the Green Cities, but Hong Kong is let down by its lower scores for bike and foot network, safety for cyclists and pedestrians, and green private vehicle policies.

Each city has received a grade between A and F for the overall performance of its transport system, and in each of the 10 categories shown in the chart. The higher the grade, the more complete the ring is for each city, which signifies a more connected transport system. The full breakdown of the scores for each category are below. More information on the research can be found here.


  • NYC
  • LON
  • HKG
Public Transport Network

Public Transport Network

  • A
  • A
  • A
Bike and Foot Network

Bike and Foot Network

  • A
  • A
  • A
Private Vehicles

Private Vehicles

  • A
  • A
  • A
Data & Apps

Data & Apps

  • A
  • A
  • A
Affordability

affordability

  • A
  • A
  • A
Accessibility

Accessibility

  • A
  • A
  • A
Sustainability

Sustainability

  • A
  • A
  • A
Breathability

Breathability

  • A
  • A
  • A
Mobility

Mobility

  • A
  • A
  • A
Safety

Safety

  • A
  • A
  • A

Score Breakdown

Public Transport Network

Length of the rapid transport network
(km per sq km)

  • NYC
  • LON
  • HKG

Network capacity

Network connectivity

Frequency and reliability

Network maintenance and development

Bike and Foot Network

Length of the cycle network (km per sq km)

  • NYC
  • LON
  • HKG

Quality of the cycle network

Bike-sharing scheme (locations per sq km)

  • NYC
  • LON
  • HKG

Bike-sharing promotion

Walkability score

Private Vehicles

Traffic reduction policy

Car-share clubs (locations per sq km)

  • NYC
  • LON
  • HKG

Car-sharing promotion

Electric vehicle charging infrastructure (locations per 10,000 people)

  • NYC
  • LON
  • HKG

Electric vehicle promotion

Data & Apps

Open transit data policy

Electronic payment facility

Availability of WiFi in the public transport system

Quality of web- and mobile-based transport information

Provision of real-time transport information

Affordability

Monthly ticket cost (% share of average monthly net wage)

  • NYC
  • LON
  • HKG

Cost-difference multiplier (outer vs inner zone)

  • NYC
  • LON
  • HKG

Accessibility

Trips taken by public transport (% share of motorised transport)

  • NYC
  • LON
  • HKG

Accessibility of public transport system

Sustainability

Transport emissions (tonnes per capita)

  • NYC
  • LON
  • HKG

Breathability

NO2 (annual average µg/m³)

  • NYC
  • LON
  • HKG

SO2 (annual average µg/m³)

  • NYC
  • LON
  • HKG

PM2.5 (annual average µg/m³)

  • NYC
  • LON
  • HKG

Mobility

Trips taken by foot and bike (% share of total)

  • NYC
  • LON
  • HKG

Safety

Pedestrian fatalities (per 10,000 people walking to work and school)

  • NYC
  • LON
  • HKG

Cyclist fatalities (per 10,000 people cycling to work or school)

  • NYC
  • LON
  • HKG

Mega Cities

Mega Cities have populations of more than 10 million and are located in rapidly urbanising emerging markets.

  • Beijing
  • Mumbai
  • São Paulo

Beijing leads the group, receiving an overall score of C+, while Mumbai and São Paulo each receive a C. As Mega Cities continue to boom, propelled by industrialisation and mass migration from rural areas, low incomes and rapidly rising populations are proving particularly challenging in terms of improving networks and ensuring that basic infrastructure meets demands in these cities. However, innovative new uses of data and apps to improve connectivity in a cost-effective way are helping these cities gain pace with global competitors.

Each city has received a grade between A and F for the overall performance of its transport system, and in each of the 10 categories shown in the chart. The higher the grade, the more complete the ring is for each city, which signifies a more connected transport system. The full breakdown of the scores for each category are below. More information on the research can be found here.


  • BJS
  • BOM
  • SAO
Public Transport Network

Public Transport Network

  • A
  • A
  • A
Bike and Foot Network

Bike and Foot Network

  • A
  • A
  • A
Private Vehicles

Private Vehicles

  • A
  • A
  • A
Data & Apps

Data & Apps

  • A
  • A
  • A
Affordability

affordability

  • A
  • A
  • A
Accessibility

Accessibility

  • A
  • A
  • A
Sustainability

Sustainability

  • A
  • A
  • A
Breathability

Breathability

  • A
  • A
  • A
Mobility

Mobility

  • A
  • A
  • A
Safety

Safety

  • A
  • A
  • A

Score Breakdown

Public Transport Network

Length of the rapid transport network
(km per sq km)

  • BJS
  • BOM
  • SAO

Network capacity

Network connectivity

Frequency and reliability

Network maintenance and development

Bike and Foot Network

Length of the cycle network (km per sq km)

  • BJS
  • BOM
  • SAO

Quality of the cycle network

Bike-sharing scheme (locations per sq km)

  • BJS
  • BOM
  • SAO

Bike-sharing promotion

Walkability score

Private Vehicles

Traffic reduction policy

Car-share clubs (locations per sq km)

  • BJS
  • BOM
  • SAO

Car-sharing promotion

Electric vehicle charging infrastructure (locations per 10,000 people)

  • BJS
  • BOM
  • SAO

Electric vehicle promotion

Data & Apps

Open transit data policy

Electronic payment facility

Availability of WiFi in the public transport system

Quality of web- and mobile-based transport information

Provision of real-time transport information

Affordability

Monthly ticket cost (% share of average monthly net wage)

  • BJS
  • BOM
  • SAO

Cost-difference multiplier (outer vs inner zone)

  • BJS
  • BOM
  • SAO

Accessibility

Trips taken by public transport (% share of motorised transport)

  • BJS
  • BOM
  • SAO

Accessibility of public transport system

Sustainability

Transport emissions (tonnes per capita)

  • BJS
  • BOM
  • SAO

Breathability

NO2 (annual average µg/m³)

  • BJS
  • BOM
  • SAO

SO2 (annual average µg/m³)

  • BJS
  • BOM
  • SAO

PM2.5 (annual average µg/m³)

  • BJS
  • BOM
  • SAO

Mobility

Trips taken by foot and bike (% share of total)

  • BJS
  • BOM
  • SAO

Safety

Pedestrian fatalities (per 10,000 people walking to work and school)

  • BJS
  • BOM
  • SAO

Cyclist fatalities (per 10,000 people cycling to work or school)

  • BJS
  • BOM
  • SAO

Green Cities

Green Cities are smaller cities demonstrably striving for environmental sustainability through transport and infrastructure policies.

  • Copenhagen
  • Singapore
  • Vancouver

Copenhagen is the clear leader, with an overall score of B+. Vancouver and Singapore follow just behind, with a B apiece. With high scores across the board, these three cities are leading the pack in sustainability, safety and mobility.

Each city has received a grade between A and F for the overall performance of its transport system, and in each of the 10 categories shown in the chart. The higher the grade, the more complete the ring is for each city, which signifies a more connected transport system. The full breakdown of the scores for each category are below. More information on the research can be found here.


  • CPH
  • SIN
  • YVR
Public Transport Network

Public Transport Network

  • A
  • A
  • A
Bike and Foot Network

Bike and Foot Network

  • A
  • A
  • A
Private Vehicles

Private Vehicles

  • A
  • A
  • A
Data & Apps

Data & Apps

  • A
  • A
  • A
Affordability

affordability

  • A
  • A
  • A
Accessibility

Accessibility

  • A
  • A
  • A
Sustainability

Sustainability

  • A
  • A
  • A
Breathability

Breathability

  • A
  • A
  • A
Mobility

Mobility

  • A
  • A
  • A
Safety

Safety

  • A
  • A
  • A

Score Breakdown

Public Transport Network

Length of the rapid transit network (km per sq km)

  • CPH
  • SIN
  • YVR

Network capacity

Network connectivity

Frequency and reliability

Network maintenance and development

Bike and Foot Network

Length of the cycle network (km per sq km)

  • CPH
  • SIN
  • YVR

Quality of the cycle network

Bike-sharing scheme (locations per sq km)

  • CPH
  • SIN
  • YVR

Bike-sharing promotion

Walkability score

Private Vehicles

Traffic reduction policy

Car-share clubs (locations per sq km)

  • CPH
  • SIN
  • YVR

Car-sharing promotion

Electric vehicle charging infrastructure (locations per 10,000 people)

  • CPH
  • SIN
  • YVR

Electric vehicle promotion

Data & Apps

Open transit data policy

Electronic payment facility

Availability of WiFi in the public transport system

Quality of web- and mobile-based transport information

Provision of real-time transport information

Affordability

Monthly ticket cost (% share of average monthly net wage)

  • CPH
  • SIN
  • YVR

Cost-difference multiplier (outer vs inner zone)

  • CPH
  • SIN
  • YVR

Accessibility

Trips taken by public transport (% share of motorised transport)

  • CPH
  • SIN
  • YVR

Accessibility of public transport system

Sustainability

Transport emissions (tonnes per capita)

  • CPH
  • SIN
  • YVR

Breathability

NO2 (annual average µg/m³)

  • CPH
  • SIN
  • YVR

SO2 (annual average µg/m³)

  • CPH
  • SIN
  • YVR

PM2.5 (annual average µg/m³)

  • CPH
  • SIN
  • YVR

Mobility

Trips taken by foot and bike (% share of total)

  • CPH
  • SIN
  • YVR

Safety

Pedestrian fatalities (per 10,000 people walking to work and school)

  • CPH
  • SIN
  • YVR

Cyclist fatalities (per 10,000 people cycling to work or school)

  • CPH
  • SIN
  • YVR

Car Cities

Car Cities have historically encouraged the use of private automobiles as the primary mode of transport and have been designed with car use in mind.

  • Dubai
  • Houston
  • Kuala Lumpur

Kuala Lumpur and Houston receive the worst scores across the board, with a D- each, while Dubai does marginally better, with a D. The Car Cities lagged behind the rest due to their poor efforts to curb car use and promote vehicle-sharing, walking and cycling.

Each city has received a grade between A and F for the overall performance of its transport system, and in each of the 10 categories shown in the chart. The higher the grade, the more complete the ring is for each city, which signifies a more connected transport system. The full breakdown of the scores for each category are below. More information on the research can be found here.


  • DXB
  • HOU
  • KUL
Public Transport Network

Public Transport Network

  • A
  • A
  • A
Bike and Foot Network

Bike and Foot Network

  • A
  • A
  • A
Private Vehicles

Private Vehicles

  • A
  • A
  • A
Data & Apps

Data & Apps

  • A
  • A
  • A
Affordability

affordability

  • A
  • A
  • A
Accessibility

Accessibility

  • A
  • A
  • A
Sustainability

Sustainability

  • A
  • A
  • A
Breathability

Breathability

  • A
  • A
  • A
Mobility

Mobility

  • A
  • A
  • A
Safety

Safety

  • A
  • A
  • A

Score Breakdown

Public Transport Network

Length of the rapid transit network (km per sq km)

  • DXB
  • HOU
  • KUL

Network capacity

Network connectivity

Frequency and reliability

Network maintenance and development

Bike and Foot Network

Length of the cycle network (km per sq km)

  • DXB
  • HOU
  • KUL

Quality of the cycle network

Bike-sharing scheme (locations per sq km)

  • DXB
  • HOU
  • KUL

Bike-sharing promotion

Walkability score

Private Vehicles

Traffic reduction policy

Car-share clubs (locations per sq km)

  • DXB
  • HOU
  • KUL

Car-sharing promotion

Electric vehicle charging infrastructure (locations per 10,000 people)

  • DXB
  • HOU
  • KUL

Electric vehicle promotion

Data & Apps

Open transit data policy

Electronic payment facility

Availability of WiFi in the public transport system

Quality of web- and mobile-based transport information

Provision of real-time transport information

Affordability

Monthly ticket cost (% share of average monthly net wage)

  • DXB
  • HOU
  • KUL

Cost-difference multiplier (outer vs inner zone)

  • DXB
  • HOU
  • KUL

Accessibility

Trips taken by public transport (% share of motorised transport)

  • DXB
  • HOU
  • KUL

Accessibility of public transport system

Sustainability

Transport emissions (tonnes per capita)

  • DXB
  • HOU
  • KUL

Breathability

NO2 (annual average µg/m³)

  • DXB
  • HOU
  • KUL

SO2 (annual average µg/m³)

  • DXB
  • HOU
  • KUL

PM2.5 (annual average µg/m³)

  • DXB
  • HOU
  • KUL

Mobility

Trips taken by foot and bike (% share of total)

  • DXB
  • HOU
  • KUL

Safety

Pedestrian fatalities (per 10,000 people walking to work and school)

  • DXB
  • HOU
  • KUL

Cyclist fatalities (per 10,000 people cycling to work or school)

  • DXB
  • HOU
  • KUL