From Car-Oriented to People-Oriented Transport Systems

I've spent 20 years in transport policy learning what works and what doesn't

We know what to do: make cycling safe, improve buses, pedestrianise streets.

But knowing what to do doesn't matter if you can't get it done.

The real problem? We're thinking about change completely wrong.

Join my FREE webinar this week to learn:

• Which policies you can leverage to catalyse wider transformation
• The change strategies that work without relying on bold reforming politicians
• How you can apply them to your community

Over 250 people have already registered.

There are two sessions available, so you can choose the time that best fits your location:

• Session A: Wednesday 26th November 6pm (AEDT) (Asia-Pacific / Europe friendly time) → [Register here]
• Session B: Thursday 27th November 4am (AEDT) (Americas / Europe friendly time) → [Register here]

Policy

The Power of Policy Combinations in Changing Travel Behaviour

There is quite a lot of evidence on the likely modal trip impacts of stand-alone policy initiatives, such as public transport fares or service frequency and road pricing reforms on changes in travel behaviour. However, the effect of combining policies is much less studied. This research aims to help fill that gap.

Key Takeaways

• This paper studies how different transport policies affect people's travel choices, comparing single policies to combined policies.
• When transport policies work together, they have a bigger effect than when they work alone.
• Policies have different effects depending on whether prices go up or down.
• When "push" policies (making cars less attractive) and "pull" policies (making buses more attractive) work together, they change people's behaviour more than single policies do.
• Improving public transport would work better if we also made driving more expensive.
• "Push" approaches include charging fees for road use, higher fuel prices, car restrictions, carpool lanes, parking limits, rewards, and campaigns to change behaviour.
• Lowering bus fares by 10% alone increased bus trips by 13.25 million. But if you make tolls free at the same time, people actually take 10.55 million fewer bus trips because driving becomes more attractive, even with cheaper bus fares.
• Lowering bus fares or adding more bus routes barely reduces CO2 emissions.
• Charging drivers based on distance travelled significantly reduces emissions and is the most effective way to fight climate change in transport.
• In countries like Australia, where 80% of people drive cars, improving public transport alone doesn't work very well.

Comment

In transport, we are not very good at combining policies to deliver better outcomes.

This research provides valuable insights into the benefits of combining policies to optimise outcomes.

Whether we use the language of push and pull or sticks and carrots, it is clear that to see significant improvements in our transport systems, we will need to use push/stick policies.

What Next?

Should you be looking to combine policies to achieve change?

Carbon Emissions

Can Carbon Credits Make MaaS Work? Evidence from Beijing

Meeting carbon emissions targets in the transport sector requires significant behavioural changes. This paper examined a carbon incentive program embedded in a MaaS platform in Beijing to assess its impact.

Key Takeaways

• The research used data from 3.9 million participants and 4.8 billion multimodal trips over 395 days.
• The program is the first globally to embed a certified carbon trading mechanism directly into a city-wide mobility platform.
• Verified emission reductions from low-carbon travel are aggregated and sold in the carbon market, with proceeds reinvested to fund user rewards.
• In the first month of use, low-carbon trips increased by 20.4% and remained elevated, with a 12.8% increase eight months after enrollment.
• The results yielded an annual carbon reduction of ~94,000 tons, or 5.7% of certified reductions in Beijing’s carbon market.
• Average trip duration increased by 7.4 minutes and trip distance by 2.8 kilometres immediately after enrollment, suggesting that mode shifts involved modestly longer journeys.
• The effects were strongest among women, young adults, and high-income travellers, particularly those making only a few short trips per day.
• The effectiveness varied substantially across Beijing.
• The most effective areas for change were concentrated closer to the city centre, where accessibility and transit connectivity are greatest.
• Subway network density showed the strongest and most consistent positive association with program effectiveness.
• The underlying behavioural mechanisms (whether the change is driven by economics, environmental awareness, or gamification) remain a “black box”.

Comment

Despite many places struggling to make MaaS platforms a success or use incentives to achieve significant change in favour of sustainable travel, this study appears to have had some success.

However, it clearly favours areas with good public transport, and the longer-term impacts are unknown.

Obviously, this is only one city in one country. It would be interesting to see similar trials in other cities around the world to see if the impacts can be repeated or even exceeded.

What next?

Could you duplicate this MaaS and carbon reduction platform?

Safety

How to Build Public Support for Speed Safety Measures

People's perceptions of risk play a significant role in transport systems. People are less likely to walk or cycle if it feels risky. They buy bigger cars partly to make them feel safer (even if it makes everyone else less safe). This research examined perceptions of speeding risks in the United States and how they apply to automatic speeding enforcement.

Key Takeaways

• Automated speed enforcement is effective, but not widely implemented in the United States.
• Speeding is widespread in the United States and contributes to nearly 12,000 deaths annually.
• Speed is especially critical on arterials, with high traffic volumes and a disproportionate share of fatalities.
• Respondents to the survey widely agree about the dangers of drunk and distracted driving.
• However, respondents see speeding as relatively less dangerous, especially on arterial streets.
• Support for cameras was much higher among those who already believed speeding was relatively dangerous.
• A safety message increased support for enforcement cameras, but only among respondents who initially saw speeding as less or much less dangerous.

• The results suggest that emphasising the dangers of speed can shift perceptions and increase support for automated speed enforcement—an effective but underused policy tool.
• Practitioners should emphasise the risks of speeding in safety messaging, particularly when advocating for traffic cameras.

Comment

We tend to assume that people understand the risks of speeding, but this research shows that this is not the case. If we are to improve road safety and gain more support for measures to reduce speeds, explaining the dangers of speed would appear to be a good starting point.

What Next?

How can you apply this research to your road safety messaging?

Quick Adventures in Transport Wonderland

Here is what else I came across this week:

• ​Are Adolescents’ Decisions to Cycle to School Linked to Their Parents’ Cycling Behaviour?​
• ​Fare free transit is great, but reliable services are better.​
• ​Has COVID-19 changed habits towards public transport and perceived service quality?​

Blog

Family Transport: Finding the Low-Hanging Fruit for Mode Shift

This week, in my blog, I discussed the potential to reduce families' car dependency.

Tool

Models for Delivery of Local Bus Networks

​This handbook from the Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) is for Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) on the different models for regulating local bus networks.

It emphasises that both Enhanced Partnerships and franchising can be designed in many different ways, and that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to regulating bus networks.

Innovation

Europe’s next freight inspector walks on four legs

​This article from the Rail Agenda describes how LTG Cargo in Lithuania is testing an autonomous robot dog that patrols freight trains to find faults before they become problems.