Policy

Stop Predicting the Future and Start Deciding It with Vision-Led Planning

I have written before about the need to move away from demand or forecast-led (predict and provide) planning and adopt a 'decide and provide', vision-led approach for transport, where you decide upon a preferred future and chart a pathway to realise that vision. The question is, how do you create a good vision? This paper is a useful guide for practitioners.

Key Takeaways

• The paper addresses ten central and commonly asked questions about visions and their use:

1. What is a vision? A future that we choose to work towards, but not the actions required to reach that endpoint. They have both a descriptive and motivational role.
2. Why are visions worth developing? Visions should be inspiring and, at best, motivating towards the envisioned change.
3. Who should be involved in visioning, how and why? Visioning is a democratic exercise. A vision shaped by many people can have a bearing on the later support for or resistance to measures being introduced to help realise the vision.
4. How is the scope of a vision clarified? Visions of the future can be generic or territorial in their focus and may or may not have a time horizon. Visions intended to provide a reference point for subsequent strategy development and action planning need to assume greater specificity if they are to be of value.
5. How far should the bounds of future possibility be stretched? The further ahead into the future a vision is set, the greater the scope for change to unfold. The time horizon should be sufficiently far off to allow the space to think beyond today’s immediate problems and to permit real change to take place.
6. How is a vision developed? A successfully developed vision is not only the vision itself but the development process:
   • There is a need to begin with clarity over the “terms of reference” for the vision.
   • Acquainting participants with a shared understanding of the current situation, its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
   • Generating possibilities for what might be incorporated into a vision involves asking, “How is the future vision different from the current systems?"
   • What are people and organisations doing and how are they behaving differently in the future?
7. How much time and effort are needed for visioning? The resourcing demands for visioning depend on: What sort of vision is being created?, How far out is the vision looking?, What will the vision be used for?
8. How do you know a good vision when you see it?
   • Aligned and shared
   • Aspirational and challenging yet attainable
   • Clear and coherent
   • While it might be tempting to create a vision that resonates with every stakeholder and that ‘ticks all the boxes’, focusing on three to five main issues (with aims) ensures a more actionable vision.
9. How is a vision brought to life? Most transport visions are initially articulated as a written description of characteristics of a preferred future, perhaps accompanied by graphics and personas. Once a vision is created that captures people’s attention, the next step is to ensure it can be effectively embedded within the system it is aimed at.
10. How is a vision put to work in the planning process? Construct a route map back to the present from a preferred future outcome.

Comment

This is a valuable guide to developing a good vision. All too often, you do see 'tick all the boxes' visions. I also like the focus on creating a route map to integrate the vision into the planning process. Unfortunately, even good visions often fall at this hurdle as words need to be translated into physical change in our transport systems.

What next?

Have you moved to a vision-led approach? How are you supporting your people in developing their visioning skills?

Policy

Are Smart Mobility Hubs the Solution We Have Been Looking For?

Smart Mobility Hubs (SMHs) are an emerging concept in many cities where people can access a variety of transport modes. The hope is that by promoting the use of a range of mobility solutions, SMHs will help people leave their cars behind. This research paper looked at what happened when SMHs were established in Dublin for council staff to use.

Key Takeaways

• The study analysed the usage patterns of electric cars (e-cars) and electric bikes (e-bikes), focusing on factors such as trip frequency, distance travelled, and the trips’ spatial distribution.
• The SMHs were located at several public offices across Dublin, allowing council staff to access e-cars and e-bikes for work travel throughout the day.
• Available evidence in the literature suggests that several factors can influence the choice of transport mode, including distance travelled and the availability of public transport and cycling infrastructure.
• The study revealed that the same factors tend to affect staff trips during work hours, and the SMH did not see a significant reduction in car use.
• The relatively short study period and the focus on a specific geographical location limit the generalisability of the findings.
• While SMHs have potential, the current preference for private cars remains a significant challenge.
• To fully achieve the initial goals of reducing car dependency and promoting active transport modes, additional efforts are required, such as improving cycling infrastructure and addressing safety concerns.

Comment

If we are to see a significant mode shift away from cars, this evidence suggests that SMHs on their own will not be sufficient. This is not surprising; if you want to encourage cycling, the most powerful lever is to improve the infrastructure. Over the past century, we have reshaped our cities to make it as convenient as possible to get around by car. The vast majority of people will not shift their transport mode out of the goodness (or for the health) of their hearts. We need to make driving less appealing compared to the alternatives, and given the predominance of cars, this is where things get politically challenging.

What next?

Are you developing SMHs? How will you evaluate them?

Leadership

The Status Quo Trap: Why Transport Policy Changes Seem Harder Than They Are

Transport systems across the globe face unprecedented challenges. From choking urban congestion to ambitious Net Zero targets and rapid technological disruption, the need for bold policy reforms is clear. Yet meaningful change remains frustratingly elusive.

The culprit? It might be simpler than we think: our own psychology.

The Power of "How Things Are"

New research reveals how status quo bias, our tendency to prefer current conditions and resist change, systematically distorts both public opinion and policy decision-making in transport. When researchers tested public attitudes toward three key transport policies (road pricing, speed limits, and train fare differentiation), they uncovered a striking pattern.

The same policy attracted majority support when presented as the current system, but faced resistance when framed as a proposed change. This wasn't about the merits of the policy itself; it was purely about whether people perceived it as the existing state of affairs or as something new.

This psychological quirk has profound implications for transport policy:

Before Implementation: Public polling and consultation will systematically underestimate support for beneficial changes. Decision-makers, seeing lukewarm or negative responses, may abandon worthwhile reforms before they begin.

After Implementation: Once new policies become the status quo, public acceptance grows. What seemed politically impossible yesterday becomes the accepted norm of today.

Consider London's congestion charge. Initially controversial and politically risky, it's now widely accepted as part of the city's transport landscape. The policy didn't change, but its status as "how things are" transformed public perception.

The Real Cost of Inaction

Without recognising status quo bias, policymakers face a double trap. They overestimate the political risks of change and underestimate the long-term public acceptance of well-designed policies. The result? Less innovation, fewer bold solutions, and transport systems that fall behind the pace of change our cities desperately need.

A New Approach to Change

By understanding that public resistance to change often reflects psychological comfort with familiarity rather than genuine opposition to better outcomes, they can:

• Interpret consultation results more accurately, recognising that initial resistance may soften post-implementation
• Design communication strategies that acknowledge and address status quo bias directly
• Build plans that account for the psychology of change

What Next?

The next time you're advising decision makers, ask yourself: Are you accounting for status quo bias in your strategy? Are you helping decision-makers understand that today's resistance might become tomorrow's acceptance?

Quick Adventures in Transport Wonderland

Here is what I came across this week:

• Is there a negative relationship between mobility (motor vehicle travel) and economic productivity, contrary to what most people think? This paper believes so.
• Which interventions and policies can have the greatest impact at each different stage of the transition to cycling? This paper created a hierarchy of needs for Lisbon.
• How do you deliver a successful e-bike rebate program? This Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) paper provides a 5-step guide.

Blog

The Case for Beautiful Public Transport

This week, my blog made the case for beautiful public transport.

Innovation

Fare Innovation

Rolling out new fare payment infrastructure is expensive and risky. FAIRTIQ's solution enables mobile phone payments without the infrastructure expense. You can listen to an interview with the founder on the Freewheeling podcast.

Tool

Walkability Map

​

The Heart Foundation has produced the Community Walkability Map, a tool designed to help communities understand and advocate for more walkable, healthier neighbourhoods.