Length of the rapid transport network
(km per sq km)
- NYC
- LON
- HKG
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.
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.
Public Transport Network
Bike and Foot Network
Private Vehicles
Data & Apps
affordability
Accessibility
Sustainability
Breathability
Mobility
Safety
Length of the rapid transport network
(km per sq km)
Network capacity
Network connectivity
Frequency and reliability
Network maintenance and development
Length of the cycle network (km per sq km)
Quality of the cycle network
Bike-sharing scheme (locations per sq km)
Bike-sharing promotion
Walkability score
Traffic reduction policy
Car-share clubs (locations per sq km)
Car-sharing promotion
Electric vehicle charging infrastructure (locations per 10,000 people)
Electric vehicle promotion
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
Monthly ticket cost (% share of average monthly net wage)
Cost-difference multiplier (outer vs inner zone)
Trips taken by public transport (% share of motorised transport)
Accessibility of public transport system
Transport emissions (tonnes per capita)
NO2 (annual average µg/m³)
SO2 (annual average µg/m³)
PM2.5 (annual average µg/m³)
Trips taken by foot and bike (% share of total)
Pedestrian fatalities (per 10,000 people walking to work and school)
Cyclist fatalities (per 10,000 people cycling to work or school)
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.
Public Transport Network
Bike and Foot Network
Private Vehicles
Data & Apps
affordability
Accessibility
Sustainability
Breathability
Mobility
Safety
Length of the rapid transport network
(km per sq km)
Network capacity
Network connectivity
Frequency and reliability
Network maintenance and development
Length of the cycle network (km per sq km)
Quality of the cycle network
Bike-sharing scheme (locations per sq km)
Bike-sharing promotion
Walkability score
Traffic reduction policy
Car-share clubs (locations per sq km)
Car-sharing promotion
Electric vehicle charging infrastructure (locations per 10,000 people)
Electric vehicle promotion
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
Monthly ticket cost (% share of average monthly net wage)
Cost-difference multiplier (outer vs inner zone)
Trips taken by public transport (% share of motorised transport)
Accessibility of public transport system
Transport emissions (tonnes per capita)
NO2 (annual average µg/m³)
SO2 (annual average µg/m³)
PM2.5 (annual average µg/m³)
Trips taken by foot and bike (% share of total)
Pedestrian fatalities (per 10,000 people walking to work and school)
Cyclist fatalities (per 10,000 people cycling to work or school)
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.
Public Transport Network
Bike and Foot Network
Private Vehicles
Data & Apps
affordability
Accessibility
Sustainability
Breathability
Mobility
Safety
Length of the rapid transit network (km per sq km)
Network capacity
Network connectivity
Frequency and reliability
Network maintenance and development
Length of the cycle network (km per sq km)
Quality of the cycle network
Bike-sharing scheme (locations per sq km)
Bike-sharing promotion
Walkability score
Traffic reduction policy
Car-share clubs (locations per sq km)
Car-sharing promotion
Electric vehicle charging infrastructure (locations per 10,000 people)
Electric vehicle promotion
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
Monthly ticket cost (% share of average monthly net wage)
Cost-difference multiplier (outer vs inner zone)
Trips taken by public transport (% share of motorised transport)
Accessibility of public transport system
Transport emissions (tonnes per capita)
NO2 (annual average µg/m³)
SO2 (annual average µg/m³)
PM2.5 (annual average µg/m³)
Trips taken by foot and bike (% share of total)
Pedestrian fatalities (per 10,000 people walking to work and school)
Cyclist fatalities (per 10,000 people cycling to work or school)
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.
Public Transport Network
Bike and Foot Network
Private Vehicles
Data & Apps
affordability
Accessibility
Sustainability
Breathability
Mobility
Safety
Length of the rapid transit network (km per sq km)
Network capacity
Network connectivity
Frequency and reliability
Network maintenance and development
Length of the cycle network (km per sq km)
Quality of the cycle network
Bike-sharing scheme (locations per sq km)
Bike-sharing promotion
Walkability score
Traffic reduction policy
Car-share clubs (locations per sq km)
Car-sharing promotion
Electric vehicle charging infrastructure (locations per 10,000 people)
Electric vehicle promotion
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
Monthly ticket cost (% share of average monthly net wage)
Cost-difference multiplier (outer vs inner zone)
Trips taken by public transport (% share of motorised transport)
Accessibility of public transport system
Transport emissions (tonnes per capita)
NO2 (annual average µg/m³)
SO2 (annual average µg/m³)
PM2.5 (annual average µg/m³)
Trips taken by foot and bike (% share of total)
Pedestrian fatalities (per 10,000 people walking to work and school)
Cyclist fatalities (per 10,000 people cycling to work or school)