Jean Mercier^a, Mario Carrier^a, Fábio Duarte^b, ^c,  Fanny Tremblay-Racicot^d


Highlights
•Styles of regulation and policy tools in sustainable transport systems in Americas.
•Instrument choices and sequence of policy tools in Seattle, Montreal and Curitiba.
•Four types of instruments: Self-regulative, Informative, Proactive and Interactive.
•Governance (interactive) techniques do not preclude the necessity of government (proactive).


Keywords
Policy tools; Governance; Regulation; Government; Transport; Seattle; Montreal; Curitiba

Abstract
Cities around the world are trying to implement transport policies to reduce the dramatic environmental impacts of motorized modes. There is no single method to determine the success of sustainable transport systems, but comparative studies can be illuminating despite inevitable data inconsistencies. This study brings to the forefront different styles of regulation and mix of policy tools used by cities that have been trying to implement sustainable transport systems. To this end, a classification scheme of policy instruments was developed based on asymmetries of information and legitimacy, generating four types of instruments: Self-regulative, Informative/Limited action, Proactive/Government and Interactive/Governance. Using 39 semi-structured interviews with key informants from different levels of government and stakeholders, this paper compares the instrument choice in terms of sustainable urban transport policy in Seattle, Montreal and Curitiba. The main conclusions drawn from our interviews is that the distinction between government/proactive instruments and governance/interactive instruments does not appear as dichotomous and clear as expected and that each city deploys somewhat different patterns of instrument choice, in accordance with its political and institutional context.